Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of York, West Riding (Wentworth Division), in the room of George Henry Hirst, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Edwards.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

POOR RELIEF.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause a circular to be sent out to local authorities regarding relief to the unemployed, and advising the adoption of increased scales of relief for the winter months because of the greater cost of living during that period?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): No. Sir. The decision as to the amount of relief to be granted to each individual applicant is a matter for the local authority. In coming to that decision the authority must take into consideration all relevant circumstances. The authority's duty is to provide needful sustentation. If the relief granted is inadequate, the applicant has a right of appeal. If the relief granted is excessive, the local authority incurs the risk of surcharge. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to interfere with the local authority's function by indicating in advance the view they should take of any of the circumstances.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I raised this question with the Secretary of State for Scotland in July, when the weather was pleasant and quite the opposite from what it is to-day, and that the right hon. Gentleman then promised that he would look
into the matter and see what could be done? This is the answer that we get. What is the hon. Gentleman going to reply to that?

Mr. SKELTON: My answer is that we have looked into the circumstances, and that I am now giving the hon. Gentleman a full, and I hope a clear, statement of the situation.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Secretary of State at that time considered that there was just sufficient, when the weather was temperate; surely it is the very opposite when the weather is foul, and do they therefore not require more?

Mr. MAXTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say if there have been any surcharges of local authorities in Scotland, during the last two years, for over generosity?

Mr. SKELTON: I should not like to answer that question without notice.

Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question on the Paper.

HOUSING.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated number of persons living in overcrowded conditions in Scotland; and what is the estimated percentage of this number that will be affected in the next five years by schemes so far submitted by local authorities?

Mr. SKELTON: There is no general statutory standard of overcrowding in Scotland. According to the Census Returns of 1931, however, there were 697,469 persons, or 14.9 per cent. of the population, living more than three persons to a room. As regards the latter part of the question, the programmes submitted by local authorities show the numbers of houses proposed to be erected to abate overcrowding, without detailing the numbers of persons affected, and I regret therefore that the information asked for is not available.

Captain RAMSAY: Will the hon. Gentleman have an inquiry made into this matter in order to get an estimate as to whether the problem that we are out to solve is going to be solved on the plan that we are now considering?

Mr. SKELTON: I will consider that suggestion.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the programmes that are being submitted, and does he think that the houses will be built quickly enough?

Mr. SKELTON: Programmes are not due for submission until the end of this month. My information is that they are coming in very well. A general review of them will not take place until they have all been submitted.

LOCH NESS ("MONSTER")

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the interests of science, he will cause an investigation to be made into the existence of a monster in Loch Ness?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): There appears to be no reason to suspect the presence of any baneful monster in Loch Ness, and as regards scientific interests, I think that, in present circumstances, further researches are properly a matter for the private enterprise of scientists, aided by the zeal of the Press and of photographers.

Year.
Number of new cases.
Decrees.
Number of continued and re enrolled cases.
Decrees.


1917-18*
…
…
…
…
8,242
4,448
1,506
560


1918-19
…
…
…
…
5,973
2,773
917
307


1919-20
…
…
…
…
6,021
2,629
1,300
432


1920-21
…
…
…
…
18,732
7,539
5,123
1,907


1921-22
…
…
…
…
16,827
3,478
7,837
1889


1922-23
…
…
…
…
13,924
1,249
6.374
1,408


1923-24
…
…
…
…
17,935
1,745
11.787
2,775


1924-25
…
…
…
…
11,146
1,040
13,029
2,303


1925-26
…
…
…
…
10,547
852
12,588
1,936


1926-27
…
…
…
…
8,913
788
11,872
2,044


1927-28
…
…
…
…
9,963
1,052
10,857
2,123


1928-29
…
…
…
…
11,386
1,398
11,087
3,005


1929-30
…
…
…
…
13,271
1,643
11,906
2799


1930-31
…
…
…
…
13,361
1,421
12,981
2,938


1931-32
…
…
…
…
14,838
1,465
15,414
3,662


1932-33
…
…
…
…
15,397
1,714
17,075
3,792


*Years from 1st November to 31st October.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the poverty of the herring-fishing industry, he will consider finan-

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the hon Gentleman consider inviting the assistance of the Air Department to observe and photograph this creature, so that a unique opportunity of adding to our scientific knowledge may not be thrown away?

Sir G. COLLINS: I should like a little more evidence of the exact nature of the monster before I tried to call in the Air Force.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Would not the Scottish Office find their time better occupied in trying to capture the monster of unemployment in Scotland?

RENT COURT, GLASGOW.

Mr. MIAXTON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of cases heard in Glasgow rent court for each year from 1918 to 1933 for the years ended 31st October, and th'e number of eviction orders granted for each year?

Mr. SKELTON: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are. the figures:

cially helping a campaign with the object of popularising herring as an article of food?

Sir G. COLLINS: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my statement
in the Debate last week, in which I indicated willingness to consider co-operation with the industry in any real effort they may organise to popularise home consumption by an "Eat More Herring" campaign.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the money saved from unemployment benefit could be usefully applied to a subsidy as a stimulus to this very important industry?

Sir G. COLLINS: The House knows that this matter was debated last week, and I then stated the intention of the Government.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will the right hon. Gentleman invite the attention of the Loch Ness monster?

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the recent report by the Fishery Board for Scotland that no real attempt had been made to develop the inshore fisheries along the Scottish coast, and that much information was available, in the event of a decision to develop them; and whether he has any measures to propose to carry out the policy of development recommended by the Fishery Board?

Sir G. COLLINS: As stated in the recent Debate, I have sent investigators to examine the possibilities of inshore fishing on the West Coast which was specially mentioned in the Fishery Board's report. Circumstances have materially changed since 1919 when that report was made.

Sir M. WOOD: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the existence of a system whereby fish from Holland and Belgium is sent to a forwarding agent in London, who in turn forwards the fish to France under his own name so that the foreign fish may be debited against the quota of fish allowed from this country to France; and whether he is taking any steps to put an end to this practice?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have no information as to the extent of the practice to which my hon. and gallant Friend
refers. I have, however, no power to prevent it so long as the quotas of fish which Holland and Belgium are permitted to send to this country under the Sea-Fishing Industry (Regulation of Landing) Order, 1933, are not exceeded, since United Kingdom exporters are not required to confine their trade to fish of British origin.

Sir M. WOOD: Can nothing be done to stop this practice?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INCUSTRY.

REORGANISATION COMMISSION.

7, 8 and 9. Mrs. WARD: asked the Secretary for Mines (Z) the present position in the Cannock Chase coalfield, with regard to the activities of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission;
(2) If he is in a position to state the number of collieries that will be closed down as a result of the proposals of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission; how many miners will be affected; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the position of these displaced miners;
(3) If he is now in a position to give any details of the proposals of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission for the amalgamation of collieries in the Cannock Chase coalfield; if all the collieries are to be included in the scheme; and, if not, what is to happen to those collieries which are left outside?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am proposing to lay on the Table, before the House rises, a report which I have received from the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, containing the latest information at my disposal.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Will the hon. Gentleman give an opportunity to the House to discuss this report?

Mr. T. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman make any statement as to the period that the report will cover?

Mr. BROWN: The report will cover the whole of the three years' work, and will survey the whole field.

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL BOARD.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement regarding his meeting with the executive of the Miners' Federation?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The executive met me for the purpose of discussing certain matters which they wished to lay before me for strengthening the machinery of the Coal Mines National Industrial Board. We had a useful discussion and the Mines Department is considering whether the actual proposal which has been sent in this morning does anything to meet the objections which have hitherto made further action impracticable.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Did the meeting arrive at any further conclusion on that point?

ThePRIMEMINISTER: No conclusion at all.

Mr. T. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when he will be in a position to say something definite with regard to these proposals?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not for us to say anything definite regarding these proposals here. It is for the Miners' Executive to produce a proposal which is practicable and which will fully bear examination.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether, on the proposals submitted this morning, which are now being considered, the Government will reach a decision between now and the Adjournment for Christmas?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say because I have not seen the proposal yet. I asked for it yesterday, and it was only sent in this morning.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether, within the next seven or eight days, the Mines Department and the right hon. Gentleman will consider the proposals, and will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement before the Adjournment for Christmas?

The PRIME MINISTER: I really cannot say until the Mines Department have informed me of the nature of the proposals which have been handed in.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: If I put a question on the Order Paper for a week to-morrow, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give an answer?

The PRIME MINISTER: If a question is put on the Order Paper, say a
week to-morrow, I will give a statement which will make clear the position up to that date.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND AND SWAZILAND.

Mr. LUNN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Bechuanaland chiefs, or any of them, were consulted before the issue of the first draft of the Proclamations now under consideration?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The legislative proposals in question were communicated to the chiefs in November, 1932, in the form of draft Proclamations as a basis for discussion. Since then, they have been discussed with the chiefs in great detail, and the drafts have been revised in order to meet, as far as possible, the suggestions which the chiefs have made.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether we shall have an opportunity of considering the proposed legislation, before it is enacted?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know, but whatever is the usual practice will be followed in this case.

Mr. LUNN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, before the new draft Proclamations are adopted for Bechuanaland, he will consider setting up an independent commission of inquiry to deal both with the system of government by the chiefs and the British administration, and their relation to one another?

Mr. THOMAS: It does not appear to me that there is any adequate ground for adopting this suggestion.

Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the relations that exist between the British administration and the chiefs in Bechuanaland, or is there some necessity for a readjustment of what is taking place?

Mr. THOMAS: The matter is always under consideration, but, in the main, I am certainly satisfied with the relations at the present time.

Mr. PARKINSON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any further request has been made by Acting-Chief Tshekedi that he
should come to London in connection with questions affecting the administration of the Bechuanaland protectorate and the draft proclamations now under consideration; and whether he will consider inviting him for this purpose?

Mr. THOMAS: No such request has been made by the Acting-Chief Tshekedi since the beginning of October, when it was explained to him that I considered that his proper course was to await the return to South Africa of Sir Herbert Stanley, the High Commissioner, and discuss with him any matters arising out of the draft Proclamations which the Acting-Chief wished to raise. Sir Herbert Stanley has now returned to South Africa. I do not consider that a visit by the Acting-Chief to this country would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. PARKINSON: If no satisfactory arrangement is arrived at, will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing this chief to lay his own case before a Committee of this House?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman speaks for the chief, but I would remind him that it is very dangerous, when a High Commissioner in these territories is conducting a very difficult and delicate task, to allow a suggestion that his discretion in matters of this kind will be overruled, and we shall give no encouragement to it.

Mr. PARKINSON: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman has hurled this insult at me. Surely if he speaks on behalf of the Government, others have the right to speak in order to protect the interests of this chief and his people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Mr. PARKINSON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for 'Dominion Affairs how many of the white officials in Bechuanaland are recruited from the police forces; and what was their previous rank in each case?

Mr. THOMAS: I understand that most of the present District Administrative officers of the Bechuanaland Protectorate have been promoted from the Protectorate police force. The position is dealt with on page 57 of the recent Report by Sir Alan Pim on the Financial and Economic Position of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and his recommendations are under consideration.

Mr. LUNN: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what measures he proposes to take to carry uot the recommendations contained in the recent reports on economic and financial conditions in Bechuanaland and Swaziland?

Mr. THOMAS: As regards Swaziland, funds have already been provided from the Colonial Development Fund to meet the principal development recommendations of the Commission. As regards the Bechuanaland Protectorate, apart from one specially urgent recommendation, in respect of which funds have already been provided, the position is that applications are now being prepared by the local administration and will be submitted to the Colonial Development Advisory Committee as soon as they are received.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (ADVERTISE- MENT HOARDINGS).

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will consider using the hoardings, etc., formerly belonging to the Empire Marketing Board, for the purpose of advising the public to buy Lancashire cotton goods, consume more milk, or similar purposes?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: As indicated in the reply to a question addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on 30th November last, the Government have decided to facilitate, so far as they are able to do so, the transfer of these advertising frames to local authorities for use primarily for health propaganda. Negotiations are now in progress with this end in view.

Mr. PIKE: Are any special facilities afforded to co-operative societies to supply milk to local authorities?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of this country would buy more milk if they had more money with which to buy it?

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Mr. DORAN: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that lead pencils made in Japan are now being sold in London at the retail price of 1d. per dozen; and if, in view of this and similar instances of dumping in other
trades, he will introduce legislation to prohibit the importation of any foreign article which has been produced for wages below the standard British rate?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The whole question of Japanese competition is engaging the close attention of the Government, and I would refer my hon. Friend in this connection to the statements I made in' the course of Debate on the 9th, 23rd and 29th November.

Mr. DORAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people who instigated the "Boycott German Goods" campaign are now responsible for the importation of these Chinese and Japanese goods; and cannot British traders and British workmen get some protection from this Government in regard to their labour and their commodities?

FOREIGN OATS.

Captain RAMSAY: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of foreign oats landed in this country for the two months ended 30th November, 1933, and how does this compare with the corresponding period of 1932?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total imports of oats into the United Kingdom registered during the months of October and November, 1933, as consigned from foreign countries amounted to 858,000 cwt. The imports during the corresponding period of 1932 were 402,000 cwt.

Captain RAMSAY: In view of the fact that these figures show continuous and increasing imports into this country from abroad, has the right hon. Gentleman any suggestion or any promise to hold out to the House that some action will be taken to remedy the situation, which is now a scandal?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I answered the question in the form in which it was put, but perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would like to know that in the 11 months ending November the imports of oats declined from 6,138,000 cwt. in 1932 to 4,996,000 cwt. in 1933.

Captain RAMSAY: Arising out of the original reply, may I ask if the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman in answer to my question do not show that the extra 10 per cent. duty on oats has had no effect at all?

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of altering the duty from an ad valorem duty to a specific duty—a step which he could take in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will consider that.

IMPORTED POTATOES.

Captain RAMSAY: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of potatoes landed in this country for the two months ended 30th November, 1933, and how does this compare with the corresponding period of 1932?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total imports of potatoes into the United Kingdom registered during the months of October and November, 1933, amounted to 124,000 cwt. The imports during the corresponding period of 1932 were 236,000 cwt.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Even though these figures are somewhat less, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this country can produce all the potatoes that are required for consumption here?

SECOND-HAND TEXTILE MACHINERY (EXPORTS).

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDE-MAN: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount of second-hand textile machinery that was exported from this country during last year, and what proportion of this went to Japan?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of the exports of second-hand textile machinery arc not available, as exports of secondhand machinery are not recorded separately from those of new machinery.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that there is a considerable volume of this second-hand textile (machinery being exported just now?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say whether there is much being exported just now, but certainly there has been some machinery sold in the past.

Mr. DORAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman declare the nationality of the people who sold this machinery?

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: As this is a matter of such importance in connection with the equipment of cotton
mills abroad, will not the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiries and let us have a statement on the subject?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have made inquiries, but I am afraid I cannot give the statistics for which my hon. Friend asks.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is a considerable amount?

SAND AND BALLAST SALES (MEASUREMENT).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will be able to announce his decision on the investigations by his Department into the methods of the sale of sand, ballast and similar materials dealt with by the cubic yard; whether legislation will be introduced to deal with the matter; and, if so, when?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am in communication with the Committee of the British Standards Institution, which is handling this matter on behalf of the trade interests concerned, and I am at present awaiting a further communication from that Committee. Accordingly I am not yet able to arrive at a conclusion.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of recent disclosures of the losses caused to British shipping by the uneconomic conditions of subsidised foreign shipping lines, he will now say what action he proposed to take to safeguard the British shipping industry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on the 9th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans).

26. The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. MACLEAN:

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of merchant ships that have been transferred from the British flag to foreign flags during the last two years; the respective countries to which they have been transferred; and the numbers and the tonnage of each ship?

Mr. MACLEAN: May I point out that, in the last line of this Question, the word "each" should be "such"? The words should be:
the respective countries to which they have been transferred; and the numbers and the tonnage of such ships.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: 404 vessels of 100 tons gross and upwards, formerly registered in the United Kingdom, were reported as sold to foreigners during the period 1st December, 1931, to 30th November, 1933. Of these vessels 102 have been reported as having been broken up, and it is possible that some others have been broken up. Accordingly not more than 302 vessels of the 404 vessels sold to foreigners were registered under a foreign flag. With the change in the Question suggested by the hon. Gentleman I shall be able to comply, I hope, in a table which I will send to him.

Mr. MACLEAN: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the French Government is subsidising French shipbuilding and shipping; and whether he will give an assurance that no sanction will be given for any new loan to the French Government to be raised in this country until an agreement is entered into to stop this subsidised competition?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): So far as I am aware, no proposal for the issue of a loan in this country by the French Government is at present under consideration and the question does not therefore arise.

Mr. MACLEAN: If a proposal does come forward, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the request which is made in the question?

Mr. THORNE: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer information in his Department as to the countries which subsidise ship-bulding, and, if so, and in consequence of the Motion which is to come before the House to-morrow, will he have the information circulated?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. MACLEAN: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Government of Northern Ireland is giving the shipbuilding yards in their jurisdiction the benefits of the Trade Facilities Act; and whether he is prepared to revive the benefits of the
Trade Facilites Act for shipbuilding in this country, and so enable shipbuilding companies in Britain to tender for contracts for new ships on equal terms with the shipbuilding firms in Northern Ireland?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that the hon. Member is under some misapprehension. The Trade Facilities Acts of this country expired in 1927. Any guarantees now being given by the Government of Northern Ireland are guarantees of that Government exclusively, given under a separate Act passed by the Parliament of Northern. Ireland. I do not regard the existence of these facilities as affording ground for reversing the decision of successive Governments against any general revival of the Trade Facilities Acts in this country, nor do I believe that a general artificial stimulation of shipbuilding would conduce to the advantage of shipowners or, in the long run, of shipbuilders in this country.

Mr. MACLEAN: In view of his disgust at the artificial stimulus which is given to this particular industry, will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the First Lord of the Admiralty to see that no war vessels are built under the terms of the Irish Trade Facilities Act?

MANUFACTURES (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).

Dr. HOWITT: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the excess of manufactured exports over the value of retained manufactured imports in the 11 months of 1931, 1932 and of 1933, or in the latest period available?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The excess of domestic exports over retained imports of articles classed as wholly or mainly manufactured in the trade returns of the United Kingdom, registered during the first 11 months of the year, was £40 million in 1931, £118 million in 1932 and £l3l million in 1933.

FRANCE (BRITISH GOODS: TAXATION).

Mr. HANNON: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the reason for delaying the removal of the 15 per cent. surtax on British imports into France until the beginning of next year; and if an amended trade agreement
between this country and France is under consideration?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

Mr. HANNON: In that statement, will the President indicate that it will be the policy of His Majesty's Government in future to have some means of taking immediate action, instead of allowing these things to go on for long periods?

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. HEPWORTH: 31.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what special steps are being taken to popularise information about the British Industries Fair in those countries where the competition of trade rivals is notably severe in main lines of commercial activity?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As the British Industries Fair is organised on a self-supporting basis the funds available for publicity and propaganda are necessarily limited. Steps have, however, been taken to provide the overseas officers of the Department of Overseas Trade stationed in such countries as my hon. Friend refers to with special financial assistance so far as the funds available will permit, to enable them to make the Fair known in their districts.

HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 42.
asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the fact that the present state of the law relating to hire purchase does not sufficiently protect the interests of the hire owners, of auctioneers, or other sellers, or of those who have bought articles in good faith and not knowing that they were the subjects of an incomplete hire-purchase transaction, he will introduce legislation to compel the registration of all hire-purchase agreements as bills of sale?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. It is not proposed to introduce legislation of this nature for which, as far as my right hon. and learned Friend is aware, there is no general desire.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that
the motor trade is introducing a system of registration, and is not his right hon. and learned Friend considering the extension of the same method to other trades as well?

Sir V. WARRENDER: I have no reason to suppose that my right hon. and learned Friend will turn a deaf ear to any representations that the hon. and gallant Gentleman may make.

AUCTION SALES.

Sir PARK GOFF: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will, for the protection of the public, take steps to prevent those responsible from stating that articles have been sold by auction for certain prices when the articles referred to have, to the knowledge of the auctioneer, been bought in by, or on behalf of, the vendors and have not passed into the possession of a new owner?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Legislation to deal with frauds at auctions has been considered on several occasions, but I am advised that the law as it stands is sufficient to deal with cases where members of the public are defrauded. The difficulty arises not from any deficiency in the law but from the reluctance of persons defrauded to give evidence.

Sir P. GOFF: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Auctioneers Organisation Association with a view to putting a stop to this abuse, which misleads the public?

INTER-IMPERIAL TRADE.

Dr. HOWITT: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider establishing an independent trade body, under the chairmanship of a British Minister, to undertake the development of Imperial trade unity?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are always ready, in consultation with the other members of the British Commonwealth, to consider means for the development of inter-Imperial trade relations. They have noted in this connection the suggestion recently made by the High Commissioner for the Commonwealth of Australia, to which my hon. Friend perhaps refers.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman also seen the statement recently made by the Minister of Agriculture?

RUSSIAN TIMBER (IMPORTS).

Mr. LEES-JONES: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the House any information in regard to the progress of the inquiry which he promised should be undertaken, on behalf of the Government, by the Import Duties Advisory Committee into the Canadian application for a restriction of the imports of Russian wood into this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Since this matter was referred to the Import Duties Advisory Committee it has been the subject of further discussion between His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom and in Canada, and we have also been in communication with the Soviet Government. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

Brigadier-General NATION: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, if there is to be any considerable change over in the importation of wood into this country from Russia to Canada, the possible distress and increased unemployment that might thereby be caused to ports on the east coast of England?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (EASTERN CANADA).

Mr. FLEMING: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if any measures have been taken to establish British community settlements on farms in the eastern provinces of Canada; and whether any money grant has been made by the United Kingdom's Government since November, 1931, to encourage such settlements?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: So far as His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is concerned, no measures have been taken and no money grants have been made in connection with the establishment of community settements in Canada.

Mr. FLEMING: Is it the fact that in the last few years British settlement in
Canada has been steadily decreasing, whereas non-British immigration has been steadily increasing?

Mr. THOMAS: That is true, but it is equally true that a large number of people have been compelled by economic reasons to come back to this country. I certainly would not advocate sending people out unless I was sure that they were able to get a job.

Brigadier-General NATION: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department contemplating any land settlement at all in that part of Canada?

Mr. THOMAS: The Department has under review the whole problem at this moment, but, as I have said, it depends upon the economic changes that are likely to take place in the Dominion. I repeat that it would be bad policy to send people unless they were sure of a job.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to get the Victorian trouble settled before he starts any more schemes of this kind?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (FACTORY SITE, IRVINE).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 29.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office on what grounds the War Office has refused to sell the discarded munitions factory site, comprising 220 acres, at Irvine, to a Scottish company for a coal-distillation plant; and will he give an assurance that it is not intended to retain the site for war purposes?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 30.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will reconsider his decision to refuse the sale of the War Department property at Irvine to a Scottish company, both to stimulate trade in Scotland and to give employment to many people in this neighbourhood?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): It has been decided that the property in question is required for the purposes of the Department. I may add that more than half of the property is let to the Territorial Army Association for the County of Ayr.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is the hon Gentleman aware that, although the unemployment figures during last month have decreased by 30,000 all round, in Scotland they have increased by 8,000; and does he not see that this action of the War Office will have a tremendous impression on those loyal supporters of the Government in Scotland who believe that government of Scotland by Westminster at Whitehall not alone affords no stimulus to Scottish industry but virtually seeks to deprive Scotland of an opportunity to recover?

Mr. COOPER: The Government have to think of the interests of the Army.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH TYNE RIVER (FLOODS).

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: 32.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he is aware that the risk of floods on the low-lying lands of the North Tyne River has been greatly increased by the open drains cut for the forestry operation at Kielder; and what steps the Commissioners are taking to prevent this?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The North Tyne River was subject to very severe floods prior to any draining by the Forestry Commissioners, who do not admit that the risk of floods has been increased by their operations.

Colonel BROWN: Will the situation be carefully watched this winter in case there is flooding again?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: Certainly it will be watched with the greatest care, but planting operations will tend in the long run to hold up water and diminish the risk of floods.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (ECONOMIC COMMITTEE).

Earl of DALKEITH: 33.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether the attention of the Forestry Commission has been drawn to a pamphlet entitled "The Timber Problem," published by the Economic Committee of the League of Nations; to the absence in that publication of any reference to Great Britain and to the fact that there was no representative of
British forestry or of the home timber industry on the committee in question; whether the Forestry Commission was informed in the first place that the committee was to be set up; and whether any steps were taken, through the appropriate channels, to ensure the representation of British interests?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have been asked to reply. I understand that the Forestry Commission are aware of this pamphlet, which was issued in May, 1932. Forestry statistics relating to Great Britain are contained in a document prepared by the International Institute of Agriculture, which is mentioned in the pamphlet. As Great Britain is predominantly interested in the consumption rather than in the production of timber, the Timber Trade Federation of the United Kingdom were asked to suggest the United Kingdom member of the League of Nations sub-committee. The various Departments concerned, including the Forestry Commission, are following developments in the matter.

Earl of DALKEITH: Will not my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in future the Forestry Commission will be consulted beforehand in regard to the matter of timber supplies, and does he not consider that this attitude rather ignored the importance of British forestry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I was not aware of there being any failure to consult the Forestry Commissioners about this appointment, but I will certainly see that in future the Forestry Commission are kept fully informed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH DOWNS (MOTOR RACING).

Mr. MANDER: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the proposal to lease a large tract of the South Downs for motor racing; and what action he proposes to take with a view to preserving the scenery unspoilt?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is aware of this proposal. As it is possible that it may at a later stage come before him for determination on appeal, it would not be proper for him to intervene in the meantime, nor, as matters stand, has he any power to do so. If the issue should
come before him, my right hon. Friend would give a decision only after affording all parties an opportunity to state their case.

Oral Answers to Questions — NURSING HOMES.

Sir P. GOFF: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the conversion of worn-out residences into medical nursing homes in unsuitable districts within the London area; and if he will take power in forthcoming legislation to check the extension of this practice?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend's attention has not previously been drawn to this matter but as at present advised he does not think that any further legislation is required. Under the Nursing Homes Registration Act no person may carry on a nursing home unless he is registered by the local supervising authority in respect of the particular premises, and the fitness and situation of the premises are factors which have to be taken into consideration by the authority before agreeing to register the applicant in respect of those premises.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Has the hon. Gentleman ever had a survey independently made of the nursing homes in the district between Wimpole Street and Baker Street apart from any report the Ministry may have received from the London County Council?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No. Sir.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Will the Minister call for such a report from the local authority or otherwise himself have a survey made?

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 37.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give the total amounts paid out in public assistance relief for each year from 1918 to 1933?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. THORNE: Will that table show the amount of money paid out to the able-bodied unemployed?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Yes, certainly.

Following is the answer:

It is assumed that the hon. Member desires information as to the expenditure on out-relief in money and kind paid during the years mentioned. The following table gives the required figures for England and Wales.

Year ended the 31st March
Cost of out-relief in money and kind.



£


1918
2,765,245


1919
3,053,974


1920
4,109,278


1921
5,793,383


1922
15,443,084


1923
17,909,869


1924
15,066,059


1925
13,374,653


1926
15,735,527


1927
23,914,059


1928
15,146,879


1929
13,470,845


1930
12,972,027


1931
11,611,066


1932
12,713,165


1933(approximate).
15,167,000

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 88.
asked the Minister of Transport if steps are being taken to try out by experiment any of the suggestions for reducing road accidents that are at present under the consideration of his Department?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The question of road accidents is receiving my hon. Friend's close attention and he hopes to be in a position to make a statement at an early date.

Mr. ALBERY: Is the Minister also taking account of the danger from road accidents in the immediate vicinity of the House?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not know that he is paying particular attention to this area. He is having regard to the whole country.

BRIDGES (RECONSTRUCTION).

Mr. SALT: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport how many bridges have been
rebuilt in England and Wales in each of the years ended March, 1931, 1932, and 1933, and at what cost; and how many are scheduled for reconstruction to-day or at the latest available date?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: During the years ending March, 1931, 1932, and 1933, the numbers of schemes approved for grants from the Road Fund for new, or reconstructed bridges in Great Britain, were 830, 522, and 194, respectively. I regret I am unable to furnish the other particulars for which my hon. Friend asks. I may add that I have under consideration at the present time proposals for facilitating the reconstruction of weak bridges on the more important roads.

Mr. SALT: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think, in view of the improvement in trade, that this work should be accelerated?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: We are doing all we can to accelerate it.

Mr. L. SMITH: Seeing that these old bridges are the cause of a number of accidents, is it not time that a good many of them should be replaced by modern steel or concrete bridges?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: In the original answer, I explained that we were turning our attention to the reconditioning and improvement generally of old bridges.

Mr. HICKS: Does the Minister agree that the number of bridges now being put into commission is substantially below the number recommended by the Royal Commission?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am not prepared to answer that question at the moment as I have not the recommendations of the Royal Commission in my head, but obviously there are a great many bridges that want reconditioning.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (MILK SUPPLIES, LANCASHIRE).

Mr. G. MAC DONALD: 40.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state the quantity of milk supplied to schoolchildren by the Lancashire County Council, specifying the quantity of free milk, the number of children provided for, and the number
receiving free milk in 1930, 1931, 1932, and up to the latest date for which figures are available in 1933?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): As the reply contains a number of figures, my hon. Friend will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Figures for the calendar years are not available. The figures for the financial years are as follow:

Financial Year ended 31st Match.
Number of pints of milk provided.
Number of individual children who received milk


1931
228,976
1,525


1932
211,913
1,876


1933
394,717
2,916


Period from 1st April, 1933, to 31st October, 1933.
305,542
*


* The number of children who received milk under the local education authority's arrangements during the period from 1st April to 31st October, 1933, cannot be given, but the largest number of children receiving milk in any one month was 2,848 in April, 1933.

All the milk provided by the local education authority is given free of charge. It is understood that in addition to the authority's arrangements under the Education Act, 1921, there is in operation in the area a voluntary self-supporting schemes for the supply of milk to children on payment, conducted under the auspices of the National Milk Publicity Council. No figures are available as to the number of children receiving milk under this scheme or the quantity of milk provided.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS).

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour the total cost of administration of transitional payments up to date, giving separate figures for Lancashire?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The approximate total cost of administration of transitional payments borne by the Exchequer in the
two years from November, 1931, to 30th November, 1933, is £6,700,000. Separate figures for Lancashire are not available. The total includes the administrative costs of the Ministry and of other Government Departments, together with the approved additional expenses of local authorities on work in connection with the determination of needs of applicants.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT.

Mr. MANDER: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether bilateral diplomatic negotiations with regard to disarmament have yet commenced; and whether any despatch embodying the views of the British Government has yet been forwarded to other Powers?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan).

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand from that answer that the Government have not yet embodied any views of their own to foreign Powers; and may I ask if this country is ever likely to have a foreign policy of its own?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Gentleman must not make such glaring assumptions.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICAN PROTECTORATES.

Mr. PARKINSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of administrative difficulties in the South African Protectorates which have been disclosed by the negotiations with Chief Tshekedi, he has considered the desirability of transferring the South African Protectorates from the Dominions to the Colonial Office?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that recent events in the Bechuanaland Protectorate afford any sufficient reason for altering the present arrangement under which affairs relating to the Native Territories administered by the High Commissioner for South Africa are dealt with in the Dominions Office.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it be possible to make such modifications in the administration of these Protectorates as
will ensure the same standard of public services in the Dominions as has hitherto existed in the Colonial Office services? I mean with regard to the better selection of the officials?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Inland Revenue authorities are accepting shares or debentures in companies in payment or part payment of Income Tax; whether he can state the amount of such shares and debentures actually received; and what action he is taking to put an end to this practice, in view of the criticism of the policy of the Department in this matter?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I do not read the Second Report of the Public Accounts Committee, which I assume my hon. Friend has in mind, as criticising the policy of the Inland Revenue Department in this matter. The report stated that shares and debentures should be accepted in settlement of cash tax liabilities only in the last resort and in exceptional circumstances. This has always been the practice of the Department. Up to the 31st March last, shares, debentures, etc., to a nominal value of £2½ millions had been accepted in cases of the kind referred to in payment of Income Tax, Super Tax (and Sur-tax), Excess Profits Duty and Corporation Profits Tax. The yield in cash of these taxes during the period in whicb these special transactions occurred was between three and four thousand millions.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: How many firms or persons does that figure cover?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If my hon. Friend desires that information I shall be obliged if he will put the question down, and I will see if it is possible to answer it.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is this procedure to be continued?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly, Sir; it has always been the practice.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In view of the fact that the Public Accounts Committee
declared that this is a very doubtful practice, will the Treasury consider the matter once again to see whether it ought to continue?

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Public Accounts Committee made an exhaustive examination with the help of a Treasury witness of this point and came to a conclusion, and recently published its conclusion?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly, Sir, I have referred to the conclusion, and it is not as is suggested in the first part of the first supplementary question of the hon. Gentleman opposite. They recommended that this should be done only in the last resource and in exceptional circumstances, and it is only in exceptional circumstances that it is done.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Crown proposes to carry to the High Courts the adverse verdict to the Inland Revenue in the appeal against the decision of the lower court exempting payments for a ticket of admission for a non-bather to a bathing pool at Southport from the liability to Entertainments Duty?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The question whether this case should be taken to a Higher Court has not been decided.

Mr. WHYTE: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that one group of 10 theatres in Great Britain incurred on the last year of operation losses amounting to £35,000 after having paid Entertainments Duty amounting to over £106,000; and whether, in view of the impossibility of operating indefinitely in such circumstances and the unemployment which would result if they ceased operation, he will consider this matter in connection with the forthcoming Budget?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I note the information given by my hon. Friend, and I can assure him that in framing the forthcoming Budget all relevant considerations will be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIDER AND PERRY (IMPORTS).

Mr. PIKE: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total
imports of cider and perry not containing added spirit into the United Kingdom during the six months ended 31st October, 1933, together with the total receipts from duties paid thereon?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The imports of cider and perry not containing added spirit during the six months ended the 31st October, 1933, amounted to 444,503 gallons foreign and 11,725 gallons Empire. The duty paid on foreign cider and perry not containing added spirit during the same period was approximately £1,674.

Mr. PI KE: Does the hon. Member realise that, while the quantity of imports are increasing, the actual duty payable on those imports has decreased by over 500 per cent. in the last year?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. and therefore amounts to 10 per cent. of the value of the imports.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANCHURIA (MR. LENOX- SIMPSON).

Mr. MANDER: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the case of Mr. Lenox-Simpson, who was forced by the Japanese to leave Harbin for Darien; whether a claim for compensation has yet been received; and what action he is taking in this matter?

Mr. EDEN: As stated in reply to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) on the 27th November, a claim for compensation for loss of business as a result of Mr. Lenox-Simpson's departure from Harbin has been received. This claim is now under examination by the Foreign Office in consultation with His Majesty's Legation in China,

Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before some decision is arrived at, in view of the very long delay which has taken place?

Mr. EDEN: I am afraid that I cannot give any time. It is really a question of consultation, and it cannot be very rapid.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business will be taken on Thursday and also how far it is intended
to go to-night in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the business for to-day, if the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is carried we want the Second Reading of the Newfoundland Bill; the Committee stage, and if possible the remaining stages, of the Agricultural Marketing Bill. The Motion to approve the Potato Marketing Scheme, which it is proposed to take, is exempted business.
With reference to Thursday, we propose to take the concluding stages of the Agricultural Marketing Bill, unless we can dispose of that Bill to-day; the Committee stage of the Newfoundland Bill; the Committee stage of the amended Money Resolution relating to the Unemployment Bill, which it is hoped will not entail a long Debate in view of the full discussion that took place yesterday on a similar Resolution. We shall also take into consideration the Motions to approve the Potato Marketing Scheme, unless already passed, and the Hops Marketing Scheme; and, if there is time, other Orders on the Paper will be taken.

Mr. ATTLEE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not keep the House until the small hours of the morning to get all these Orders through?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. not unreasonably. But at this time of the Session the business must be put on so that every minute that the House sits may be used.

Mr. MAXTON: If this habit of suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule is to become a daily custom, would it not be better to alter the Standing Order and make the closing hour of the House a later time than eleven o'clock? May I ask if the revised form of the Money Resolution of the Unemployment Bill is now available to hon. Members? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is on the Order Paper to-day !"] Since that is so, why does the right hon. Gentleman assume that the Debate on it will be any shorter than the Debate which took place yesterday?

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the last part of the hon. Member's Supplementary Question, he may have carefully observed that I said, "It is hoped." Until it is found to be impossible, I
shall continue to hope. With regard to the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, it is a common practice at certain parts of the Session, and it is unnecessary to change the Standing Order as to hours in order to accommodate the last fortnight's business of a part of the Session.

Mr. MAXTON: Will it ever be possible to put down the consideration of these marketing schemes at an earlier hour? They are always the last item of business, and therefore they do not get the discussion that they rightly deserve. Would it be possible in the arrangement of business to put one of the stages of these marketing schemes for consideration at an early hour, when reasonable discussion would be possible? I am referring particularly to the Potato Marketing Scheme and the Hops Marketing Scheme.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I supplement the suggestion of the hon. Member in regard to the Potato Marketing Scheme, which might very well be brought on next Thursday prior to the Money Resolution of the Unemployment Bill? An intimation has already been made from the Scottish producers that they are in opposition to this scheme. While I appreciate that these marketing schemes are exempted business and can be taken subsequently to 11 p.m., if there is to be constructive opposition to the scheme, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might consider bringing it up earlier in the day.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am perfectly certain that if there is any desire in any part of the House that the Potato Marketing Scheme should be brought on reasonably early, the business before it need not be prolonged in its consideration.

Mr. MAXTON: No. that will not do.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered suspending one or two of the minor oppositions?

Colonel GRETTON: Will the Prime Minister agree not to take the Potato Marketing Scheme or the Hops Scheme at a late hour? These matters are of importance to large sections of the community, and I urge that they should not be brought on at a very late hour, when they cannot be properly debated.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the best thing is to wait and see how we get along. I am sure that with some cooperation the whole of this programme can be got through.

Colonel GRETTON: I would remind the Prime Minister that people like myself, and others for whom I speak, are not responsible for the prolonged Debates on other matters.

Mr. LUNN: Might not the Newfoundland Bill be adjourned until next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry to say that that is impossible. The Bill must be through Parliament and become law before we adjourn for the Christmas, Recess.

Mr. LUNN: Could it be adjourned until next Monday?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is impossible.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 48.

Division No. 19.]
AYES.
 [3.39 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, w.)
Bossom, A. C.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Boulton, W. W.
Carver, Major William H.


Albery, Irving James
Bower, Lieut. Com. Robert Tatton
Castlereagh, Viscount


Allen. Lt. Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Caza.et, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Broadbent, Colonel John
Chamberlain. Rt. Hon.Sir J. A. (Birm.,W)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Brown, Col. O. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Christie, James Archibald


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Clayton, Sir Christopher


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Browne, Captain A. C.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Buchan-Hepburn. P. G. T
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Colman, N. C. D.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Burnett, John George
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Cook, Thomas A.


Blindell, James
Calne. G. R. Hall.
Cooke, Dnuglas


Borodale, Viscount
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Cooper, A. Duff


Copeland, Ida
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Crooke, J. Smedley
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rickards, George William


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Jamieson, Douglas
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainb'ro)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Ker, J. Campbell
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russsell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Knight, Holford
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Denville, Alfred
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Dickie, John P.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Donner, P. W.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Salt, Edward W.


Doran, Edward
Levy, Thomas
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Drewe, Cedric
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Duckworth. George A. V.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Scone, Lord


Dug dale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W,


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Eden, Robert Anthony
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Elliston. Captain George Sampson
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. p. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n A Kinc'dine, C.)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mckie John Hamilton
Smithers, Waldron


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Erskine-Bolst. Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Soper, Richard


Fermoy, Lord
Magnay, Thomas
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Maitland, Adam
Stevenson, James


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)


Fox, sir Gifford
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stones. James


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Strauss, Edward A.


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Milne, Charles
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Summersby. Charles H.


Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n. S.)


Goldie, Noel B.
Morgan, Robert H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thomas. James P. L. (Hereford)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Nail. Sir Joseph
Thompson, Luke


Graves, Marjorle
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersef'ld)
Train, John


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
North, Edward T.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)


Hamilton. Sir George (Ilford)
Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hanbury, Cecil
Palmer, Francis Noel
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Patrick, Colin M.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pearson, William G.
Weymouth. Viscount


Harbord, Arthur
Peat, Charles U,
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Hartland, George A.
Perkins. Walter R. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Petherick, M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pike. Cecil F.
Wilson. Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Potter, John
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Wise, Alfred R.


Hepworth, Joseph
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wolmer, Rt. Hon, Viscount


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Womersley, Walter James


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pybus, Percy John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Hornby, Frank
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)



Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Howitt. Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Fenny.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper



Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn. William


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean. Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall. George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Buchanan. George
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & 2etl'nd)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Cove, William G.
Hicks. Ernest George
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Janner, Barnett
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Daggar, George
Jenkins. Sir William
Maxton, James.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
John. William
Owen. Major Goronwy


Dobbie, William
Jones, Mergan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson. John Allen


Edwards, Charles
Kirkwood, David
Rea. Walter Russell


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Leonard, William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred




Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
White, Henry Graham
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Williams, Or. John H. (Llanelly)



Thorns, William James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tinker, John Joseph
Wilmot, John
Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had agreed to the following Resolutions, which they had directed him to report to the House:—

1. That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel may and is hereby empowered to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's Panel to take 'his place temporarily in case of necessity.

2. That where, on two successive sittings of a Standing Committee called for the consideration of a particular Bill, the Committee has to be adjourned by reason of the absence of a quorum within the first twenty minutes of the time for which the said Committee was summoned, the Chairman do instruct the Clerk to place the particular Bill at the bottom of. the list of Bills then waiting consideration of that Committee, and that the Committee shall forthwith be convened to consider the other Bill or Bills then waiting.

3. That it is the undoubted and established right of the Chairman who is appointed to a Standing Committee for the consideration of a particular Bill to name the day and hour on which the consideration of the Bill shall begin.

4. That if, during the consideration of a Bill before one of the Standing Committees, it shall appear that the business would be expedited by postponing the further consideration of the Bill in hand until the Bill next on the list has been reported, and if the Member in charge of the Bill rises and makes a Motion to that effect, the Chairman will be in order in proposing such a question.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — NEWFOUNDLAND BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.48 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
There will be common agreement among all sections of political thought, whatever may be our views on these proposals, in deploring the circumstances which have necessitated the introduction of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the Money Resolution, dealt with the financial aspects of the question, and, I therefore propose to deal with the constitutional and general questions involved. My first duty is to pay a tribute to the remarkable work of the Commission. When one remembers that it was a joint Commission appointed by three Governments, that it performed one of the most difficult and unpleasant tasks that could fall to any Commission, when one remembers that the Commission's investigations began in March and ended in October, that the members of it paid two visits to Newfoundland and one to Canada, and that they examined over 260 witnesses, one gains some idea of the thorough way in which they did their work. I was more than delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridge-ton (Mr. Maxton), who earlier this year made what I thought was a very unfair attack upon Lord Amulree, the Chairman, did the magnanimous thing that all of us who know him knew perfectly well that he would do when he knew the facts, by paying a tribute, as I do to-day, to the magnificent work of the Commission. Not the least interesting result of the
Commission's work is the fact that, with all the diverse economic interests of Newfoundland, Canada and ourselves, the report was a unanimous report. That is a remarkable tribute to the Chairman.
Let me suggest to the House a short picture of Newfoundland. It is necessary, to understand the situation, to realise what a scattered population Newfoundland has. Newfoundland itself comprises an area of 42,000 square miles. With Labrador included it is nearly three times the size of England. It has mainly a fishing population. Although there are only 280,000 inhabitants, half of that total is settled in one-twelfth of the Island. Thirteen hundred settlements are spread over a coast-line of 6,000 miles. I give those facts to indicate that, while it is true, as the Commission point out, that there has been very bad administration, and while the Commission are very frank in their strictures as to the expense of government, it is only fair also to keep clearly in mind the difficult nature of the country and the consequent expense of administration in those circumstances.
As I have said the main industry is fishing. As in other parts of the world that industry had a boom period during the War. Prices went up, and the Newfoundland people assumed that that condition of affairs would continue. Undoubtedly it was because of that fact that they embarked on expenditure that under normal circumstances could not be justified. It is true to say that no Budget has been balanced since 1920. It will be appreciated that geographical position added very considerably to the difficulties of administration. I do not say that with the idea of minimising in the least the abuses recorded, nor do I minimise in the least the strictures passed by the Coon-mission, but I do feel that when we remember the hardships of these people, the terrible winters that they experience and the arduous nature of their work, some regard should be paid to the courage of the people and to the difficult circumstances of the country.
During the Debates on the Financial Resolution, it was generally assumed that the proposals now before the House were the only proposals considered by the Commission. It is fair to point out, as the Commission point out in their report, that the Commission examined all manner of alternatives. They asked, first, what would be the position if we agreed to a
default. The Commission in their report show conclusively that in their judgment that would be disastrous to the people themselves. The Commission then examined the question of the sale of Labrador. The natural purchaser, I suppose, would be Canada, but on examining that suggestion they found that, whatever the people of Newfoundland might say about it, it was a question not only of a willing seller but of a willing buyer on agreed terms. The Commission rejected the idea for the reason that no one was prepared to pay for Labrador the price that Newfoundland felt it was worth.
Then the question arose whether it would not be better for Newfoundland to link with Canada. There are Members in this House who take that view. I suppose, if one looks at the geographical position, that would seem the natural thing to do. But the Commission found on investigation that that was the one thing the Newfoundland people themselves did not desire; they found absolute unanimity against the proposal so far as Newfoundland was concerned. They also found that, so far as Canada was concerned, there was no enthusiasm even from the Canadian side for it. Therefore, having examined all those proposals, they unanimously came to the conclusion that the only practical alternative which would meet the situation was the proposal that they made, and which is embodied in the Bill I have the honour to move.
I give those reasons for the examination of the alternatives, because nothing would do more harm than to assume that all that the Commission had in mind was help from this country. On the contrary, the Commission made every effort, they exhausted all the means open to them to try, if possible, to introduce some other alternative, but, in the end, they were driven to the conclusion that this was the only course open. Therefore, they propose this change temporarily—I hope, and we all hope, not for a long period—to remove the status of Dominion Government from one of our oldest Colonies. The constitution which they propose, and which is embodied in this Bill, is a constitution of six—three nominated by this Government and three by Newfoundland, under the chairmanship of the Governor.
Here let me say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton, in criticising these proposals, asked how was it possible for a Governor who had been presiding over 12 members, to be more efficient when presiding over six? He also said, how could you expect any real change for the better from a Governor who was responsible with others for the corruption and so on indicated in the Report? Let me remind my hon. Friend and the House that nothing could be more unfair than to connect the existing Governor, who, by the way, only went to Newfoundland in January of this year, and nothing could be more unfair than to associate any previous Governor with the bad administration of Newfoundland, for this very good and obvious reason. It is a difference which my hon. Friend did not fully appreciate. As Governor he had no right to do other than to accept the advice of his Ministers. The status of a Governor with a Prime Minister and a Cabinet is an entirely different thing from the constitution provided in this Bill; in fact, it is the real difference between control and non-control. My hon. Friend may take it that, under the old régime, with a Prime Minister and members of a political party changing from time to time, as they did change in Newfoundland, the obvious duty of the Governor was to take the advice of his Ministers.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman forget what happened in one of the Australian Colonies when the Governor-General took exception to the policy of the Prime Minister, Mr. Lang?

Mr. THOMAS: The Governor-General in that case was in an entirely different set of circumstances. The difference was that in the case of Mr. Lang, the Governor was not a Governor-General; he was the Governor, and the advice tendered to Mr. Lang was, in his judgment, contrary to the constitution, and he acted accordingly.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Tendered by Mr. Lang.

Mr. THOMAS: I agree with my hon. Friend that if he is to criticise the new constitution, he must distinguish between the position of a Governor accepting the advice of his Ministers, whatever his view may be, and the position of a new Governor sitting with six colleagues,
three appointed by Newfoundland, and three by His Majesty's Government in this country directly responsible to His Majesty's Government in this country for their action. I put it to him that there is no comparison between the two. But I will go beyond that, having regard to two facts, first, that the present Governor has occupied his position only since January, and, secondly, the latest information I have received in a letter from Mr. Alderdice this morning, paying tribute not only to the magnificent work of the Governor and his wife, but especially emphasising the way both of them have thrown their whole souls into the distressed areas. One thing he emphasised was, Do not let any criticism be directed against them, because both the Governor and his wife are doing all they can in very difficult circumstances, and in the short time certainly have endeared themselves to the people of Newfoundland. I say that because I am quite sure my hon. Friend is not acquainted with the facts.
At all events, I want to emphasise to the House the changed position. In place of the existing constitution, which is temporarily suspended, there will be a Commission of six sitting with the Governor as an executive body making their decisions, three of them appointed by the United Kingdom, and three by Newfoundland. I also observe in this connection that some mention was made during the Debate as to what was the position having regard to the Statute of Westminster.

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: The right hon. Gentleman said that three of the Commissioners were to be appointed by Newfoundland. Does that mean that they are to be appointed by the Governor in Newfoundland, or what body?

Mr. THOMAS: They will be appointed by the Government now in existence in Newfoundland. They will be their nominees. The others will be appointed by His Majesty's Government in this country. Their work will be clearly defined and allocated. The Governor will preside, but the first three Newfoundland representatives will be the nominees of the existing Government.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Has the Governor got the casting vote?

Mr. THOMAS: A decision will be a majority decision. There are three and three, so that if there were three on either side, that is, absolute equality on the Newfoundland side and among our own representatives, obviously the Governor in those circumstances would have the casting vote. In those circumstances, four would be a majority.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that these officials, whether they are nominated by Newfoundland or by us, will be responsible to this Parliament and the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. THOMAS: That is true, but the question asked was, What would be the position in the event of, say, the three Newfoundland representatives taking one view, and the three British representstives taking another? My answer is that it would be a majority decision. There are seven members of the board, and therefore that meets the situation.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are they removable by you?

Mr. THOMAS: That is perfectly true, but I did not want to talk about removing anybody on the Second Heading of the Bill. If, however, my right hon. and gallant Friend puts it in this way—Who in the end is the final authority? it is the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. That is perfectly true, but, obviously, I did not want to talk on the Second Reading of the Bill about removing anybody or anything of that kind. I did not, for the reason that one of the greatest tributes to the commissioners' work is the fact that they themselves pointed out that the success of their scheme depended entirely upon the co-operation of the Newfoundland people themselves, and when we remember that, practically within a few weeks of the report being published, the present Prime Minister and his Cabinet not only accepted the report, but themselves petitioned His Majesty in the usual form, that, in itself, is the best evidence that the Newfoundland people themselves are not only in favour of the scheme, but they themselves are satisfied that it is the only alternative. Some question was raised with regard to the Statute of Westminster, and its application to this Bill. When the Statute of Westminster was introduced, it was at Newfoundland's own request that it should not apply to
them unless they so desired. They have not desired it, and, therefore, that itself is the answer. So far as the procedure we are now adopting is concerned, it is strictly in accord with the position prior to the Statute of Westminster being introduced.
During the discussion on the Financial Resolution questions were asked as to whether it was intended to appoint Commissioners from inside the Civil Service or from outside it. There is no decision on that point for this very good reason. We want to get the very best men available, and whether they are inside or outside the Civil Service, will not affect the situation in the least. We are. not committed to anyone, either inside or outside the service. I am sure the House will agree that in an experiment of this character, having regard to all the consequences that may follow, the very best men available for this responsible task should be selected and that is the Government's intention. If we cannot find them inside the Civil Service at present, there is no objection to going outside it. I do not want it to be assumed for one moment that the whole thing is cut and dried. There is, as I have said, no definite decision but the matter is being investigated and the best men that we can find for these posts will certainly be given the opportunity of filling them.
In the Debate on the Financial Resolution my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) based his opposition to the Resolution upon what I thought a rather flimsy pretext. He said he had looked up the deposits in the local banks of Newfoundland and found that they amounted to 26,000,000 dollars and he argued that these deposits ought to be used before the British Government were called upon to guarantee this loan. I put it to the House that, when we consider the hardships of the people in Newfoundland, when we remember the burdens which they bear, when we remember how those who have deposits are those who are called upon to provide most of the relief that is provided, it is a very dangerous doctrine to put forward that you should confiscate the deposits of people who have savings in savings banks or other banks. I am sure if it were sought to apply such a doctrine to this country there would be great resent-
ment. In any case, to assume that by merely taking charge of these deposits you would solve this problem is trifling with the situation.
The short point which the Government had to consider was this. Here was one of the Dominions, one of our oldest Colonies, in a position in which she was unable to meet her liabilities. We could have said frankly to her: "We will do nothing." But does anybody in this House fail to realise that had we allowed Newfoundland to default the first con-sequences to Newfoundland herself would have been disastrous? She would never have been able to borrow again; the whole of her industry would have been crippled and the first people to have suffered would have been those whom we are most anxious at this moment to help. Secondly, the effect of a default in one of the Dominions would, have had its repercussions elsewhere and would have damaged very considerably the trustee position of the stocks of all the Dominions. No one in this House could for one moment suggest that the repercussions which would have followed the default by Newfoundland would not have been far more serious in their financial effect than the cost which we have undertaken in this matter. Thirdly, we must not forget that these hard-working people who are living in the circumstances already described, were not unmindful of their obligations to this country during the War. It would be a very poor response and would show very little gratitude on our part if, in their hour of need, we were unmindful of the contribution which they then made.

Mr. MAXTON: There is nothing in this Bill to help them.

Mr. THOMAS: That is exactly the difference between my hon. Friend and myself, both in policy and in point of view. He says there is nothing here to help them. My answer is that if we did not undertake the liability, if we allowed default to take place, the credit of Newfoundland would have gone and that would have meant disaster to these people. What is in this Bill to help them? First, we are maintaining their credit and meeting their liabilities—I hope, temporarily. Secondly, we are giving them expert help and advice in administering their affairs and they will
have the benefit of the efficiency, ability and experience of those whom we propose to send out there. Thirdly, we are giving them the opportunity to reorganise, to put their house in order, if I may use that phrase, so that the time may not be long delayed when they will have restored to them that status which they are voluntarily giving up at this moment.

Mr. MAXTON: But there is nothing of all that in the Bill. All that is in the Bill is directed to relieving, not the distresses of the people of Newfoundland. but the distresses of the people who own Newfoundland stock in the United States and this country.

Mr. THOMAS: No one knows better than my hon. Friend that the conclusion to be drawn from that remark is that he takes the view that if this country repudiated its obligations it would make no difference to the mass of the people. We take another view. We take the view that we are rendering the best service to all classes of the people in Newfoundland by the action which we are taking. Therefore, although no one welcomes this Bill—because we all deplore the circumstances which are responsible for it—yet the Government, having reviewed the situation and the Commission, which patiently and exhaustively examined the facts, having come to the conclusion that this was the best road open, we feel we have no alternative but to adopt these proposals and on all those grounds I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
whilst anxious to relieve the distress of the Newfoundland fishermen and their families, this House declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which, while imposing an unjustifiable burden upon British taxpayers by the provision of grants and guarantees in the interests of banks, of moneylenders and stockholders, makes no specific provision for substituting the inefficient and vicious system of competitive capitalism, truck, and exploitation by an economic system organised in the interests of the community.
On the Financial Resolution we had a speech from the Government which dealt almost entirely with finance. This after-
noon, we have had a speech which has dealt almost entirely with sentiment. Neither speech dealt with the economic circumstances of Newfoundland, the economic system which has existed in that country or the economic aspects of what the Government propose to do. We on this side are not opposing the Bill from any lack of desire to help the people of Newfoundland, but we are opposed to giving money to bondholders and moneylenders who have made certain investments, presumably with their eyes open—I shall have some questions to ask later as to how far their eyes were open—and who, having made a bad bargain, are now to be placed in a favoured position by having their interest provided by the masses of the people of this country.
I wish to say something first of the economic circumstances of Newfoundland. It is true that Newfoundland has suffered, like the other food-producing and raw-material-producing countries, from the economic blizzard. It is true according to the report that Newfoundland has had a very corrupt Government. It is also true that, like many other weak and corrupt Governments in the past, that Government found plenty of moneylenders willing to lend them money until they had filled up the cup. But except for one scanty reference the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no allusion to the exploitation of Newfoundland which has been going on year after year. In the report one gets a very full account of the system under which the fishermen in Newfoundland worked. It is described as having been, first, a vicious feudal system, which was replaced later by a more vicious capitalism. Under the feudal system there was at least some obligation on the exploiters to keep the explointed during the winter. But capitalism has always improved on feudalism from the point of view of the masters, by providing ingenious devices whereby they can exploit the workers while handing over to the community their obligations to the workers.
On page 79 of the report we find how that was done and how the position of the fishermen was such that the prices of their fish were fixed for them by the merchants who were their only buyers; the prices of their supplies were fixed for them by the same merchants who
were their only suppliers, and the same merchants were the only providers of credit. On page 80 of the report the commissioners have traced the psychological effect of this truck and credit system on the people of the country and they more than suggest that the laxity which led to corruption was bred in that system. Then we have the story common to all areas like this, in which you have the exploiter coming along, a story of the reckless disposal of the assets of the community to financial interests. We find on page 34 the scathing comment of the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, father of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, over the reckless way in which the future of the Colony was mortgaged to the Reid interests. One reads further that capitalism was not merely voracious but was utterly inefficient. If you look at page 105 of the report, you will find that the system has made for the production, not of good products, but of bad products, that the system has not fostered the use of their own shipping, but the use of foreign steamers. You find that while efforts have now and again been made to get a better system, the merchants have always pursued an extreme individualism. It is stated that:
They have insisted on conducting their businesses on a basis of pure individualism without regard to the true interests of the country and without regard to the successes achieved by their foreign competitors. Intent only on outdoing their local rivals in a scramble for immediate profits, they have failed to realise that time does not stand still.
It goes on to point out how, by this scrambling and ineffective competitive system, the Newfoundlanders have lost their markets. There is one thing that I miss from this report. I do not get any real details as to who these merchants are. I should like to have known what has happened to all the funds which they have extracted from the workers of New foundland throughout these years. I do not know whether it is represented by stocks and shares, whether they are the creditors of the Newfoundland Government, or whether it is represented by the working capital, as no doubt some of it is, or whether they have laid up their riches somewhere else where they are more safe. What surprises me is that the Government's spokesmen have any amount of righteous indignation against these corrupt politicians, but have nothing whatever to say about these
corrupt capitalists and the whole degrading situation of the economic system in Newfoundland.
When one turns to the financial position, one finds a gloomy tale of a long series of deficit after deficit, loan after loan, and I want to know one or two things on this subject. I want to know how long it is since the Dominions Office knew of the financial state of Newfoundland, what steps they took in this matter, whether they warned investors in this country when these constant loans came along, and whether the people in other countries were warned, because a good deal of this borrowing has been from the United States of America, and I do not know why we should be the benefactors of the whole world. When anyone invests any money anywhere and loses it, it has always to be paid by our people. This is only an extension of that wonderful little Measure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced at a time when most hon. Members had departed for their holidays, in which he made up the gambling losses of the gentlemen who had invested in 5½ per cent. dollar bonds.
I would like to know whether the Dominions Office knew about this corruption that has been going on year after year, because it has not been made particularly public. We have had any amount of speeches about our glorious Empire and so forth, and we have had conference after conference, but we have never heard anything about this. In fact, it has generally been held to be out of order to say anything at all rude about any politicians outside this country. They have always been assumed to be sans peur et sans reproche. I should like to know whether this was really known, whether the Dominions Office, looking at the course of events, seeing the conditions in the world, accepted the inevitability of bankruptcy. What is the logic of this report? It is that where you have people who borrow money and borrow again, anyone, the most innocent person, knows what happens. When you go to a moneylender and when you have to keep on borrowing, the day of reckoning comes sooner or later, and—

Mr. ALBERY: Your Government always did it, and always would do it.

Mr. ATTLEE: I will leave that to one of the National Labour Members to answer, but, if the Dominions Office really
knew of this inevitability of bankruptcy, did they acknowledge the moral responsibility of this country towards the bondholders? The big question of finance here is not providing something to tide Newfoundland over their difficulty; it is providing something for the people who have lent their money to Newfoundland, and, while you can say that you have a moral responsibility for our brave kinsmen oversea who fought in the War, I have yet to have any definite information as to what the bondholders did in the War.

Mr. MAXTON: "Too proud to fight."

Mr. ATTLEE: This matter, after all, has been put on a high moral ground. It is our responsibility, we are told, though not an absolute legal responsibility, because we find that our Government took particular care in these issues to say that they were issued on the credit of the Newfoundland Government and not on that of the Government of the United Kingdom. I should have thought that anybody who was going to invest in Newfoundland, if they had looked at their annual budgets and read the statements, would have been like the motorist who sees the notice, "You have been warned." They have been warned, but we in this House have not been warned. We have had no reports from the Dominions Secretary about what was going on in Newfoundland, and I want to know exactly what the responsibility of this country is. I think everybody will echo the philanthropic sentiments of the Secretary of State towards these men, who are undoubtedly struggling against grave adversity. We only wish that that sympathy was more widespread. We wish that, beside being sympathetic to those across the Atlantic, they could be sympathetic to those in South Wales.
But we are told that this is a great matter of honour, that it would be a terrible thing if Newfoundland made default. Really, that is a very old nineteenth century attitude to adopt. All the best countries default nowadays. We hear every week from the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) about Russia, but Russia is not the only country to default. The French did not manage to pay up all they owed, the Italians did not pay back all they borrowed in the War, Germany has not
paid, and we ourselves are not paying the United States of America. There was a very interesting point in the discussion the other day, because someone—I think it was the right hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay) who made such an interesting contribution to the Debate—suggested that they should make a token payment, whereupon the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:
A token payment would, of course, he default if … 
Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was sitting near, must have warned his colleague where he was going and reminded him that, after all, we were making a token payment; and we are always assured by those who know that we have no intention of paying, yet our honour is quite unhurt. It was an eloquent aposiopesis.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I hope the hon. Gentleman is not also going to make an aposiopesis, but will read the whole passage.

Mr. ATTLEE: I will. It reads:
Mr. HORE-BBLISHA: A token payment would, of course, he default if … Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY ; The hon. Member has not asked these people whether they are prepared to accept conversion.

Mr. HORE-BETJSHA: If you make a token payment which is not agreed to by the bondholders, that is default."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1933; col. 1908; Vol. 283.]
It is very difficult to find out exactly where we stand, because I find that it is apparently honourable to make a default to a Government, but dishonourable to make a default to a private individual. If we had raised money from our taxpayers here and lent it to the Newfoundland Government, and they could not pay, the right hon. Member would have got up and said that blood was thicker than water, and so on, and, of course, they could not be expected to pay. There is no question of honour about that, but the real people in whom they are interested are the individuals who have invested their money, and that is where we find the real springs of action of this Government. I am not inclined to think that they are really sobbing their hearts out so much for these bondholders as bondholders, but because, if once default
begins, where is it going to stop in a world that is in debt? As a matter of fact, this is not the first occasion on which the masses of the people of this country have been asked to pay money, nominally to assist the Dominions, but really to assist the bondholders. There was the case of the Ottawa Agreements. The whole idea was that the consumers in this country should pay sufficiently large sums for the products of the Dominions to enable them to pay interest on the money lent by British capitalists. That, of course, is the basis of the Argentine Agreement.
We are setting here an extremely dangerous precedent. Newfoundland may be only the first in the race. Other Dominions have also been in great difficulties, and if world prices do not rise, we may find any number of them coming hat in hand to our Government. The precedent is, "We are absolutely bound ill honour to settle your debts for you, and fortunately we have in this country a large number of people who were so misguided as to give us a doctor's mandate two years ago." They volunteered to pay for the cost of the breakdown of the money-lending system, and those people are being made to pay for Dominion after Dominion. Are we in this country, as a matter of fact, to be guarantors of the finances of the rest of the British Empire even in cases where we have conceded self-government and where by the latest developments they are called equal partners in the British Commonwealth of Nations? I suggest that if there had been no debt in being to the bondholders, there would have been no Bill. You might have had a small grant, you might have had a Lord Mayor's fund, and you would not have had anything like this money put up for the fishermen. It is put up because we have here a capitalist Government that has worked the Parliamentary machine and the legislative machine in the last two years in the interests of the rentier.
An empire that is largely built up for the benefit of a capitalist rentier class has an extremely insecure foundation, and the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are endeavouring to cement the Empire is just the way to make it crumble. Indeed, it seems to be crumbling rather fast under the right hon. Gentleman's care, especially when he has to come forward
as bum-bailiff of the British investor. It is bad in this case, it is bad in the case of the other Dominions, and particularly bad in the case of Ireland. The whole basis of the self-governing British Commonwealth is upset if there is no reality in self-government and if the Dominions are only temporarily separate. They say to us, "Give us the portion of goods belonging to us," and then they go away and fall in with some Capitalist swine; and when they come back to us we have to kill the fatted calf for them. This policy is based on the principle that we must not tarnish the name of trustee securities. It is about time that the Government faced the fact that the world cannot stand the interest demanded by the money-lenders. Because of the mass of indebtedness piled up and of the fall in prices, the burden is too great, and if you say that it has to be put on the back of the working man, you will have some severe trouble.
I may be told that the people who lent money to Newfoundland are themselves making a severe sacrifice. The Financial Secretary said that they were losing 30 per cent. If I made an investment so bad as that of Newfoundland, I should be very thankful to come out of it as well as they did. They have been given a good security in place of a worse one. I cannot see why we should have to meet the losses made by these people, for the bulk of them must have gone into this investment with their eyes open. If they did not, they ought to have been warned by the Dominions Office. What is going to happen? We are going to take over, put the bailiffs in, and run the business of this island for a certain period of years. We are going to put down large sums of money, we are going to accept this contingent liability, and all for what? To hand it back to the capitalists. There are no provisions whatever in this Bill for dealing with the fundamental viciousness of the economic system in Newfoundland, that is to say, the credit system and the truck system. I look at various proposals for the scientific development of the fisheries, and even for co-operation among fishermen, but they all assume the continuation of a system of exploitation by the merchants.
I suggest that the clearest moral that you can draw from the Report of this
Commission is the utter failure of competitive capitalism; that the Newfoundlanders are not very experienced; and that their political system has broken down badly. It is a cruel thing therefore to suggest that we should nurse them back to health for a little time and then hand them back quickly to that system. A scheme should be worked out of Newfoundland for the Newfoundlanders. I notice that one of the suggestions is that Labrador should be handed over to a trading company. I thought we had got away from the days of trading companies and that the record of trading companies was enough for us.
But the whole of this scheme is to my mind only of secondary interest to its government from the point of view of what is going to happen to the Newfoundlanders. That is not the primary object of the scheme. The primary object is to try and keep going interest for the rentiers. The whole tendency of the administration of this Government is to put the taxes more and more on to the indirect taxpayer, and therefore the bulk of this burden will fall upon the working-class as the bulk of those subventions which we are paying to other Dominions under the Ottawa Agreements and so on comes from the working-class. Although you may keep the Newfoundland people just going, the net effect of this Measure, as of most of the Measures of this Government, is merely the internal transfer of purchasing power within this community from the poorer to the richer, from the workers to the rentiers.

4.53 p.m.

Sir E. GRIGG: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment in his search for unworthy motives for the production of this Measure. I regard the reasons given for it as both sound and convincing. I believe that it is a necessary and most salutary measure for protecting British credit at the present moment, and I also regard it, despite what the hon. Member has said, as a Measure which will, if properly administered, bring relief to the distressed Newfoundland population. For my part, therefore, I am going to support it wholeheartedly. I am also convinced by what the right hon. Gentleman the Dominions Secretary said when he moved the Second Reading, that the Commission did its utmost to explore all other alternatives.
It is clear that the question of an arrangement with Canada is outside practical politics at the present moment. It is equally clear that nothing can be done in the way of a sale of Labrador, and that a grant-in-aid from this country is not by itself satisfactory or sufficient. I therefore accept absolutely the argument that, in the conditions that exist, the Government of this country have to take over the government of Newfoundland.
I think, however, that we have to be very certain that the conditions on which we take over the government are fair to the people of Newfoundland and to ourselves. They must be fair in the sense not only of re-establishing the credit of Newfoundland, but of building up a sound economic future for the Newfoundland population. This country has not only to look after the money that is put into Newfoundland—to make certain that we put in no more than is absolutely necessary, and that that amount is well expended—but we have to make certain that we are not creating a very difficult political relationship with a very old self-governing Colony. It is on this point that I feel considerable anxiety. In this Measure the House is taking an entirely new and critical responsibility, a very strange responsibility in the year 1933; and no one, I think, can fail to feel astonishment and surprise at the fact that when a Joint Committee of the two Houses is considering the grant of Parliamentary self-government on certain lines to India we should be actually withdrawing it from a Colony which has enjoyed representative government for over 100 years, and responsible government for at least two-thirds of that time.

Mr. MAXTON: They have enjoyed it pretty well, too.

Sir E. GRIGG: We must see, in taking over this responsibility, that the arrangements made are such that we shall do ourselves credit and emerge successfully from a very trying experiment. What is the system of government that is being introduced in Newfoundland by this Measure? It is not a new system, but a very old system. It is simply Crown Colony government through a Governor and an executive council without a legislative council. I feel, I am bound to say, a certain anxiety at the fact that no provision has been made in this constitution for the representation of public
opinion in Newfoundland. I will come in a moment to certain provisions which perhaps qualify that statement, but, broadly speaking, there is no provision for the hearing of expressions of public opinion in this constitution. Whatever may be the fault of the people of Newfoundland at the present moment, that omission will cause trouble in future because feeling on these things changes rapidly. It is against all experience to believe that people will accept a constitution of this kind very long without reacting against it.
In the Debate in Committee on the Financial Resolution, reference was very properly made to Lord Milner's work of reconstruction in South Africa. Lord Milner had autocratic powers, and he used them as only a man of his stuture could, but he was equipped almost from the outset with a Legislative Council which represented all sections of the population, including our late enemies in the two defeated provinces. That Legislative Council unquestionably helped very greatly in the work of reconstruction by keeping the Government in touch with public opinion and by providing reasonable criticism and discussion of the measures proposed by the Government. That was done not only in the Legislative Council, but through bodies like the Inter-Colonial Railway Council, which was of a representative character. Even so, General Botha, General Smuts, and General De la Rey refused to take part in that form of government. They formed themselves into an opposition, which became a very embittered opposition, and in due course they managed to break down that system of government before it had fully accomplished the task of reconstruction for which it was constituted. That is precisely the danger we have to guard against very carefully in Newfoundland. The absence of any measure of constitutional representation for Newfoundland opinion in this emergency Constitution is a very doubtful experiment, on the whole, and against our long experience in various forms of oversea Government.
I now come to two qualifications which, I agree, have to be admitted. The first is in the constitution of what, I think, is called the Fisheries Bureau, proposed by the Royal Commission. The Fisheries Bureau is to contain three exporters, re-
presentatives, I suppose, of the commercial interests in the fishing industry. It is also, though I am not quite clear how, to contain representation of the fishermen's interest—I think that is provided for—and that in itself is an extremely interesting experiment in what we are all discussing nowadays—functional organisation and representation. But, of course, it goes a very little way towards providing the Colony with a real channel for discussion of the Government's Measures and criticism of such of its actions as it may desire to criticise. The other qualification arises out of what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon. I understand from him that three of the Newfoundland Commissioners are to be appointed by the Newfoundland Government before it expires. This is to be the last act and testament of the Newfoundland Government as we have known it for all these years. It is not clear in my mind, and I gather that His Majesty's Government have not yet decided, whether these Commissioners are to be civil servants or drawn from other branches of the public life.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It will not be correct to Bay that the last act of the Newfoundland Government will be to appoint three representatives, because, in fact, the appointment is to be made by the Secretary of State, but, naturally, the appointment will be made on the advice of those in Newfoundland,

Sir E. GRIGG: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation. It makes the position quite clear. Their very last act will be to advise the right hon. Gentleman whom he is to appoint as Newfoundland members of the Commission. But when these Commissioners are appointed members of the Governor's Executive Council, are they to be regarded then as civil servants confined to the functions of civil servants, debarred from making public speeches and defending themselves against public criticism, or are they to be Ministers going about the country explaining their actions? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten us on that point, because it really is important to know whether these executive councillors are, after appointment, civil servants, or whether they are to be regarded as
Ministers and politicians. It is going to make a great deal of difference to the working of the Constitution. If they are to be regarded as civil servants they clearly cannot be representatives; if, on the other hand, they are Ministers, those of them who come from Newfoundland are going to have a very difficult rôle to play. They have got to be loyal to their colleagues inside the Council, and at the same time they have to satisfy opinion outside it that they are duly representing that opinion outside, and also furnishing the Government with criticism. That dual capacity is bound to be very difficult, and seems certain to produce conflict inside the Council at a very early date unless public opinion is given some other channel for criticism and the expression of its feelings. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider that possibility.
The Bill as we have it suggests that this system which is being introduced is to be rigid until such time—I think I have the phrase—as "the island may become self-supporting again." Those are the words used. Is that really the case? Are we to understand that this Constitution is to remain unchanged until the island is self-supporting again and is not to be capable of modification? In particular, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the words at the end of Clause 1, Sub-section (1) where the Crown is to have power to issue new letters patent and to make provision for the administration of Newfoundland on the basis of the recommendations of the Royal Commission are to be regarded as limiting any modification, any change, any reform which His Majesty's Government may wish to make in this Constitution in the future. Are they to be tied down by that phrase to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, or can they go outside? Phrases of this sort have a curiously limiting effect in Acts of Parliament, as hon. Members know, and I shall be very glad to know whether that phrase is to be regarded as limiting the discretion and the freedom of His Majesty's Government to alter this Constitution later without coming to the House for fresh legislation. If their discretion is so limited, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would be prepared to accept an Amendment on this point in Committee.
With a good deal of doubt I would venture to put forward another suggestion. This House, in passing this Measure, is not only providing for the supervision of expenditure from the Exchequer of this country and sustaining British credit, but is doing another thing which is extremely important, that is, it is taking power to fix the taxation in this Dominion and to allocate the proceeds of that taxation. That responsibility is coming away from the Dominion Parliament to this House, and would it not be wise, when we are taking that power from people who, after all, have taxed themselves for 100 years, to provide for some system of representation? I would ask whether, in the circumstances, there is not a case for a complete innovation in our constitutional practice, and for the representation of that Dominion in this Parliament during this period of transition. After all, I do not think Newfoundland contains more voters, of both sexes, than my own constituency, and it might quite well return two Members to this Parliament. The difficulties of the in-and-out system need not be considered, because two Members are not likely to endanger the life of any Government on domestic questions.
There is a precedent in the case of Northern Ireland, which has its own Parliament and nevertheless sends Members to this House. It is true that Northern Ireland has a right to do that because 25 per cent., or something like that, of its taxation actually goes to United Kingdom objects; but the fact remains that we in this House are taking power to tax the people of Newfoundland and to allocate the proceeds of taxation; and if we are doing that we should follow the old principle and, for the time being, while this system endures, give them representation. I believe it would be of great assistance to the Council in Newfoundland, and it would be of great assistance also to this House, in discharging a very difficult responsibility, to be able to hear from representatives of the Newfoundland people exactly what the conditions in Newfoundland are, and what are the feelings of the people about these various and very difficult questions. After all, this experiment has been tried in the French Parliament, and has worked very well, and I do not see why it should not be
attempted here. I hope at any rate the right hon. Gentleman will give it consideration.
The Royal Commission have given us a brilliant diagnosis of the present state of Newfoundland, and without wishing to keep the House very much longer I would like to say a word on the economic aspect of their recommendations. The diagnosis is brilliant and exhaustive, but I feel a little less certain about some of the recommendations. After all, this system will be justified by the use which is made of Newfoundland's resources. Everything turns upon that. If we can build up a sound economic system in that island, if we can make it a place of reasonable prosperity for all its inhabitants—well and good, Parliament will have succeeded; but if we fail we are going to have serious trouble. Everything comes back to the proper use of Newfoundland's existing and potential resources.
So far as I can understand, the whole of this responsibility will be put on one commissioner. He will be acting, no doubt, with the advice and counsel of his colleagues, but, nevertheless, the whole responsibility for development is to be given to one commissioner, the commissioner dealing with the Department of Natural Resources. That is the proposal of the Royal Commission, and I understand it was adopted by the Government. Who is that commissioner to be, one of the English commissioners or one of the Newfoundland commissioners? It is very important to know. Again, is he to be a civil servant or a Minister? If he is a civil servant it will be very difficult for him to go about explaining the way in which he is dealing with Newfoundland's resources. If he is a Minister, responsible not only for explaining the action of the Government to outside opinion, but also representing outside opinion to the Government, his position will be still more difficult. I feel that to put the whole responsibility on one Department and one commissioner will impose too great and too direct a responsibility upon this House for success or failure in the discharge of these duties.
As an example of what I mean, take the question of fishing. It is generally agreed that the restoration of the fisheries is the first great step in rehabili-
tating the welfare of the island. The Royal Commission suggests a very elaborate organisation for that purpose. It suggests, I think, dividing the fisheries up into 11 districts, putting those districts under 11 officers, establishing an expensive hierarchy to run those 11 districts and to market the proceeds of the fisheries in other countries. There is no estimate of the cost of this organisation. The right hon. Gentleman may perhaps have been harking back to the spacious days when he wrote a book, to which he referred yesterday, and he may have welcomed this experiment in State management. Personally I doubt very much whether it is likely to succeed. Nobody who has been responsible for a Crown Colony system of Government could look at it with anything but apprehension. It is the sort of work, as I believe, which is badly done, on the whole by Government Departments, however efficient their members may be—and very efficient they are, as we all know. It is not really the metier of Government Departments to run this kind of Department. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway will probably disagree, but I believe one of the troubles is that civil servants cannot have quite what I would call the business conscience which is necessary for success in these things. They cannot feel, in the same way as they would in a busines concern, the necessity of showing a return upon expenditure.
I can give to the House an extraordinary example. I remember that, in the War, I was in Hazebrouck, and in the middle of the night I was looking for something warm to drink, when I came across a little base hospital. Behind that base hospital an orderly was boiling water. We had been rather wondering what to do, and we said, "Good, some coffee," We made for that orderly and his fire, and the first thing that struck me was the fuel that he was using. I looked at it in astonishment, unable to identify it. Then I discovered that it was rationed biscuit. When I asked him why he used rationed biscuit to boil water, he merely said that there was more of it available, and it was easier to get than any other fuel at that part of the Front. That serious indifference to cost is something that creeps into all the management of Government concerns, and it is a danger. What is more serious is that if the Government takes direct
responsibility for the reorganisation of the fishing industry the failures—there are bound to be failures—will react directly upon this House.
Therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is sure that the old English method of a development company is not the wisest manner of dealing with this problem. We have all heard of the old trading companies. I doubt if what was said from the Front Opposition Bench is a fair account of their history. I should say that all the great development in the Empire has been done by trading companies of some kind, and that, while there are many blemishes on their achievements, they have a magnificent record of development which is there for everybody to read. We can see, at the present time, that a company starts under adequate control and under a proper charter, and that not only commercial interests, but the fishermen, may enter into a co-operative enterprise in which they have proper participation. That does not seem to be impossible, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to regard ourselves as bound in this matter by the recommendations of the Royal Commission, or whether this department must be set up immediately the Bill goes through the House of Commons. We want a little time to consider whether some other method of dealing with these great fisheries is not more desirable and more likely to give the results that we all want. I press that suggestion, not only in regard to the fisheries, but in regard to other commercial resources.
I believe that the land position in Newfoundland is very serious, although the land is not very good—or so I am told. I have been in Newfoundland, but I have no idea of what its resources are. One reads in the report of the commission that the land is not put to any good use, but it may once again be made useful for development. The commission suggest that the land should be taxed by an undeveloped land tax, and that it should revert to the Crown in six months, if the tax is not paid. I have no objection to that. Undeveloped land taxes are a very great stimulus, and they have been so in many parts of the Empire. The commission do not tell us what is to be done with the land when it has reverted to the Crown, as a result of the transfer. They
mention the mineral resources not yet exploited by the two great companies who are operating, and they mention other resources. They speak of the other possibilities that there are, including the great possibilities of Labrador. Only in regard to Labrador do the commission mention the possibility of carrying out the work of development through a great trading or chartered company.
That suggestion, which the Commission make in regard to Labrador, could surely be explored in regard to the fisheries and the other resources of Newfoundland. The system would have more than one advantage from our point of view, and, if it were more efficient, of course it would be better. One of the great advantages of it, which the other system would certainly not have, is that, when the time comes for us to relax control, instead of a bureaucratic system which is certain to deteriorate in due course, when political influence comes back again, we should leave to the restored Dominion an efficient and reasonably independent business organisation. Whatever the future of the island, I think that that would be valuable. Provision can always be made for the people of the island to take over their own resources from this company, as people elsewhere have from chartered companies, on proper terms, if they choose to do so. The establishment of a company of that kind—perhaps one, or perhaps more—would enable us to arrive at a gradual relaxation of financial and political control in Newfoundland, without endangering its economic development.
I return now to the main question, and it is my last word. I am convinced that no system of rigid and autocratic control will work long without creating the most grievous conflict in a country which has been so long accustomed to complete self-government. This House certainly must take control, it must take responsibility for our expenditure in Newfoundland, and it must take upon itself the protection of British credit. With all that I agree, but the Newfoundland taxpayer is entitled to a say in what is going to be done during this period, and I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies at the end of this Debate he will pay some attention to these considerations.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I rise to support the Motion for the rejection that has been moved from the Front Opposition Bench. I would have contented myself with a plain Motion to read the Bill on this day six months, but the reasoned Amendment put forward by the Official Opposition is equally satisfactory to me. I am very glad that we have heard the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), whose great experience in the work of Government in other parts of the world, makes his intervention in this Debate welcome. The more so, because his speech was a steady criticism of the proposals now before the House. I welcome his speech, because I think that one of the most regrettable features about this House is the overwhelming numbers on the Government side, which develops a state of very gross carelessness. The Government know that, however slipshod their legislative proposals may be, a very indolent majority will put them through on to the Statute Book. The Government therefore know that the weight of those unthinking Members will more than counterbalance any criticism that may be brought by a numerically weak Opposition.
I regret very much that the more representative leaders of the Liberal party have been unable to find it possible to be present in the House. I understand that internal affairs are perhaps more pressing than the needs of Newfoundland. I do not say that in criticism of the two independent-minded Liberal Members—the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. I). Mason) and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)—who are on the bench. I only regret it, because I know that their views are not to be taken as quite representative of the 'average Liberal opinion. I am glad that the hon. Member for Altrincham has raised his voice from the ranks of the Government supporters in criticism of these proposals, and I hope that the official Opposition will be able on Thursday to put up a very thorough examination of the Bill on the Committee stage.
I gather from the Prime Minister's statement on business to-day that the Committee stage is to be taken on the Floor of the House. From the amount of business that he put down for that day, he assumes that this matter can be put
through in an hour or so. An examination of the Bill leads me to think that it ought to be examined in the closest and most stringent fashion, and that there ought to be submission to something like a Select Committee, where the closest examination could be made of the proposals and witnesses called, not perhaps from Newfoundland but from among former Governors of the island and from those in the Dominions Office who have been closely connected with the Dominion's affairs in the past. Since that has been denied us by the Government, it is the duty of the whole House in Committee to give as close an examination to the proposal as the procedure permits.
The Dominions Secretary, in submitting the Bill, paid a very great tribute to the chairman of the commission, and he also referred to the tribute that I paid. I admit quite frankly that I did, during the discussion of the Financial Resolution, withdraw the reflections that I had cast upon the chairman and say that in my view the report represented six months of hard work. I do not think that I could permit myself to use the words "magnificent report." The magnificence of a report does not depend so much upon the bulk of it, or the quantity of information that it contains. It may show evidence of great assiduity on the part of the members of a commission, but a report is judged by the extent to which the House feels that the needs of the situation to be inquired into are being met. In paying every possible tribute to the work of the commission and its chairman and the others, I feel that the needs of this situation are not being properly met. I cannot remember, since I have been in this House, a Bill being presented to me for examination in a form like this. The Bill consists of some six Clauses. Only two or three of those are effective, operative Clauses; the others are formal.
Then we have several pages of Schedules. The First Schedule is a verbatim statement of an Address presented to His Majesty by the Legislative Council and House of Assembly of Newfoundland. That, presumably, becomes law if this Bill is accepted. I was not going to ask the right hon. Gentleman or the Under-Secretary as to our rights of amendment: I was going to expert opinion on that matter; but, if it is impossible for us to amend this, it seems to me to be an
extraordinary new way of legislation that a ready-made Address from some other part of the world should be incorporated in a Bill here and made law. It does not stop there; we come to something new—an Annex; there is not merely a Schedule, but an Annex. This is an extract from the Report of the Royal Commission appointed by His Majesty. A portion is taken out of the Report and shoved within the pages of the Bill; and again, if the Bill goes through, this will become law. It is a very important status to give to a Royal Commission that the words which they may write in their Report are put before this House and become part of the statute law of Great Britain. There is a Second Schedule, consisting of an
Act of the Legislature of Newfoundland entitled The Loan Act, 1933.
The Newfoundland Parliament have presumably discussed this in detail, they send it over to us, and we are asked, in the course of an hour or two here, to accept it. Then at the end there is a list of Newfoundland's indebtedness—the various loans which have been issued at one time and another, which are still outstanding, and on which Newfoundland is not able to meet its responsibilities.
That is an extraordinary method. My reason for giving it more importance than perhaps other Members in the House would be inclined to give it is that I believe that the state in which Newfoundland finds itself is not the end of this sort of thing. My political theorisings lead me on general principles to a belief in the disintegration of the British Empire. I see evidences of it here and there in other places and in other things that are happening in various parts of the world, and to me it is something more than a coincidence that this oldest Dominion should be first in the queue. [An HON. MEMBER: "The oldest Colony."] The two words have been used interchangeably into reference to Newfoundland, and what we are calling it in the future I do not know. We are certainly taking away from it all the essential things that characterise a dominion. But it is still to remain under the control of the Dominions Secretary, and on that point I am very anxious to know if in the future we are going to be allowed to ask questions here about the internal affairs of Newfoundland, because the alteration of status not merely throws responsibili-
ties on the Government, but confers, I imagine, rights on the private Member in this House. These are all general considerations about the difficult nature of the task that we are performing here. It is not a trivial one, and the policy applied to Newfoundland ought in my view to be of such a sort that it could be applied fairly and equitably to any other Dominion or Colony should similar circumstances arise. We cannot rush out and shoulder all the debts of all the distressed parts of the Empire in the way that is being done here.
I cannot understand this; there is something behind it all that mystifies me. We spent practically all day yesterday discussing the question of distressed areas, most of which have far more human beings in them than Newfoundland. The total population that we are discussing here is only a quarter of the population of the city of Glasgow, and only a fraction of that of Manchester or Liverpool. Not only in South Wales, but all our municipal authorities in Britain were up on end about the inadequate provision that was being made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for relieving their responsibilities and difficulties in connection with unemployment insurance, and yesterday, after prolonged discussion and much hostile criticism from the Government Benches, the Government grudgingly consented to give them £300,000. If I were one of those who thought imperially, as Government supporters are supposed to think imperially, I should realise that Newfoundland is a distressed area just a little bit further away than Glasgow; and the utmost pressure that this House could exert, and the utmost pressure that the municipalities outside could apply, could only open the Chancellor's purse to the extent of £300,000. Nearly every community involved is carrying a huge local debt.
In the case, however, of this distressed area of Newfoundland, the Government come forward and ask us to shoulder the whole of its outstanding debts—because that is what we are asked to do in the Bill. The British taxpayer is to shoulder from now onwards—no limit is placed on it—the responsibility for the whole of the outstanding debt of Newfoundland, and quite definitely for the years ahead to make good any deficit between what the ordinary taxation of Newfoundland can produce and the ordinary expenditure of
Newfoundland in meeting debt charges and local administrative and Government charges. The House, after having already given in the last six months two grants—not loans—of £300,000, is asked to do this by the Minister in quite a happy-go-lucky way at eleven o'clock at night. I remember that one night when I was speaking on the subject it was a little past the ordinary time for going home, and, when I insisted on asking some questions about it, the House was terribly impatient at being asked to wait five minutes and discuss where this £300,000 was going and how it was to be spent. To-day we are being asked to agree to that becoming a regular, steady periodical payment. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question on the Financial Resolution. The proposals contain the date 1936, which suggests that our responsibility would cease or be reduced at least in some way when we reached the year 1936, but, on my questioning the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the furthest he would go was to say that in 1936 the position will be considered, and, if the situation is just the same, we shall go on paying just the same.
As I said on the Financial Resolution, I am rendered tremendously suspicious by the extent to which the sentimental argument is being used in connection with this matter. I am the last man in this House to minimise the importance of sentiment in human affairs; I believe that human sentiments are often better guides than the human intellect. But when I find men who were one day putting up an attitude of hard, businesslike indifference to a sentimental appeal for the man at our door, and saying, "Yes, our sympathies are as great as yours, but we must not allow ourselves to be ruled in these matters by sentiment"—when they resist appeals on sentimental grounds for somebody not two miles away from this House, in the East End of London, who may have a War record just as great as that of the Newfoundland fishermen, then, much as I appreciate and believe in sentiment, I think I am entitled to be very suspicious when the main claim for this Bill is based on a sentimental appeal. The oldest Colony! Why, the youngest Colony has a better claim for support and encouragement than the oldest Colony. The War services of the men are great, but we all
know that every Member of this House has in his constituency someone with War service who is living in miserable, abject conditions, and who, as we know, can easily be pushed aside. The basic conception in this Bill is how to meet the needs of the bondholders.
The two cases in which the right hon. Gentleman has acted with speed in the administration of his office are Ireland and Newfoundland. The position in Victoria must not be hurried. It took years of agitation to get it taken seriously, more years to get it inquired into, and longer again to get some relief for the men; and now, when the relief is obviously and clearly inadequate, there is a refusal of action. The men who went to Victoria were war veterans and British citizens. They went out at least on the incitement of the British Government of the day, but it must be long years before they get their grievance considered and, when it is considered, there is only the most grudging payment, insufficient to meet their actual losses.
What was involved in the case of Newfoundland and Ireland? In the one case the interest on the land annuities. I admit that the Irish problem was complicated by a whole lot of other things and has been more complicated since then, but the thing that produced action was not the many political complications hut the necessity of meeting the interest on the land annuities. In the case of Newfoundland we faced exactly the same thing, instant action, immediate action, hurried action, precipitate action, ill—consdered action because the interest on the Newfoundland loans is in danger. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the official Opposition. When people go into risky investments the majority of the House believe that this element of risk is an essential ingredient in the working of the system. If that is how you believe the commercial, industrial and financial game is to he played, if you are to go in there on the chance of getting big profits and the results prove that you incur heavy losses, you have to learn to do what I have learned in my relatively small gambling adventures. We do not grumble when we lose though we laugh like anything when we win. We have now got to this stage, that the gambler is only prepared to take the winnings and is not prepared to shoulder any of the losses.
The sentimental appeal to the men of Newfoundland reaches right to the core of my heart. I ask the Dominions Secretary what he is going to do for the suffering poor of Newfoundland? He says he will maintain their credit in Newfoundland, and that will incidentally percolate through in the way of advantages to the suffering poor. The financial standing and credit of the business men in the West of Scotland stands very high indeed. The municipal stock of the City of Glasgow is a sound investment. But the advantages of living in a city like Glasgow, whose credit is sound and whose public reputation is good, does not percolate through to the people whom I represent. Their poverty remains. If the right hon. Gentleman came forward and said, "On the Committee stage of the Unemployment Bill I will introduce an Amendment to bring these men of Newfoundland within the benefits of unemployment insurance," I would support him.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: On a contributory basis?

Mr. MAXTON: Without contributing anything. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to bring forward a Measure to include the widows and orphans of Newfoundland within the benefits of our Widows' and Orphans' and Old Age Pension scheme I will support that. That would be drawing closer the bonds of Empire. It would be making the men out there feel that there is something in being a son of the British Empire after all. This proposal is doing nothing for the people in Newfoundland. It is doing something for people who own Newfoundland stock in London, in New York, and on the Continent of Canada. I wish I could get on the Select Committee that is to examine this Bill. It is not the sort of basket into which people who have a limited number of eggs put them. I wish I could find out exactly the powers who are interested in this, who can abolish a Parliament in the British Empire and can come to this Parliament and present us with a whole collection of decisions and ask us to take the whole of them but never submit them to the Newfoundland people. They had nothing to do with these proposals at all. The Newfoundland Parliament and the Newfoundland Government agreed to it, but the men who form the Government and the
Parliament of Newfoundland are the politicians, the men who are responsible for the condition of affairs in Newfoundland, according to the report. They say the present Government is different from all the other Governments that they have had before, but the report does not make any distinctions. It tells us that all the politicians in Newfoundland were well up to the neck in the graft that was going on. I think the most entrancing sentence in the whole report is that there are only two principal political parties in the island, the Liberal and Conservative parties. That should be taken out and written in letters of gold.
It was not right that the future of that Colony should have been decided by the people who are responsible for its past and its present. The Government seem to adopt the public slogan of to-day, "When in difficulties run away from democracy." My attitude is precisely the converse. If a certain amount of democracy has not proved adequate for the proper handling of any situation, let us have more democracy. I believe there are in these Newfoundland fishermen the capacity, the intelligence and the morale to build a new Newfoundland. The fact that not very long ago they chased their Government round the town and locked them up in a room, unfortunately only for a very limited period, is evidence of vital, manly qualities which have not been completely destroyed and, if my voice can reach the men of Newfoundland, as distinct from the Government and the politicians of Newfoundland, I urge them to ignore anything that may be done by this Parliament or by the new governmental in-instrument which is being sent out to extract profit out of their labour, but to take the responsibility for their own lives themselves and take control and direction of their own island. I am perfectly certain that these men who could brave the terrors of the seas and stand the rigours of that climate, if they were told not to trust any of their politicians either home-grown or imported but to take control and direction of their own destinies, could build up a social, economic and industrial life which would be in keeping with human dignity as it ought to be at this period. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment of the official Opposition for the rejection of the Bill.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: It is very nice to find the official and the unofficial Opposition for once united in their desires. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) upon two remarkable qualities which he is developing. When he commenced his speech he began at the end of the Bill, and pointed out that it was a very curious Bill, that its construction was unique, and that he had never encountered one like it before. But it is not every day that we take away the constitution of a Dominion and set it up in an entirely different way. I congratulate him on his effort, as I have not seen that form of obstruction of a Bill done so vividly since we had a gentleman in the House called Sir Frederick Banbury, who represented the City of London. He was brilliant in picking out things in that way. There are a very large number of cases in this Bill where one might ask the Government to do this, that or the other thing, but I fail to see how the Government in their present position could possibly have done anything other than what they are asking to be allowed do this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee, in his earlier remarks, said that this might be the first of a series of cases in which we might have to deal with other Dominions in a similar way. I hope that that prophecy will not come to pass. But I would point out that whatever may be the position of Newfoundland to-day, Australia, which was in a very bad financial position, has been able to get back to a 3½ per cent. basis, and has been able to do it by getting rid of a Socialist Government and making it Nationalist, very much on the same lines as the Government here. The hon. Member for Limehouse said something about capitalist swine, and I am not sure whether that quotation could not be turned very aptly towards certain people, but I do not wish to indulge in that kind of conversation this afternoon. The other day the hon. Member for Bridgeton wanted us to look at the matter from the point of view of a cold business proposition. I do not think we can possibly look at it, if we read the Report and look at the figures from a purely business point of view, but must regard it as being all S.O.S. from a portion of our people scattered right away from
us in a different part of the world. We have to try to see if it is possible for them to maintain an existence to-day, and gradually to reorganise that existence in such a way that they may once again come back—as I am sure every hon. Member wishes them to do—to the position of being an independent Dominion in our Empire. We were told the other day that the limit of expenditure which the Government would make would be between £1,500,000 and £2,000,000. The amount will not go beyond that as far as we are concerned without further consultation with the House of Commons. I would ask the representative of the Government to give an explanation of the proposals which they are making on some of the matters which must arise out of this Measure.
My hon. Friend below me pointed out that he did not agree entirely with the position laid down in the Report in reference to dividing the various offices between the half-dozen administrators. That is a point upon which we ought to have a very clear understanding. Are the administrators to be really in the position of representatives, or civil servants? We ought to be told on what sort of lines they propose to reorganise the Civil Service in Newfoundland. Would it be possible—I only put this forward as a suggestion—for this country to lend them a certain number of civil servants The position of the Post Office there is almost hopeless, and I should like to know whether it is possible for us to land them for a time a number of our own skilled people—or for them to draw from Canada for that matter—to try to reorganise their Civil Service. We have a right, if the House of Commons is to find the money, to know the directions in which they are to reorganise. We know that there is a very large block of savings in Newfoundland at the present time. Savings always attract the Socialist party. The hon. Gentleman above the Gangway was very worried because they paid no rates. I should rather like to see the hon. Gentleman going around Newfoundland's 6,000 miles of coast collecting rates. I do not think that even his dulcet tones would succeed in getting much out of Newfoundland in the way of rates. There is an interesting proposal in the Report which makes it appear as if the people in Newfoundland
have, at any rate, some ideas which they wish to express. On page 182 the Report says:
A further suggestion which was sometimes made by witnesses was that an English Bank might be established in the Island.
The block of savings, it is clear from the report, are not in very adequate use at the present time. Is it possible, either by means of their own banks or Canadian banks, or even by an English bank, to make use of those savings? Wherever you go throughout the world, the English banking system is always the soundest and best. All other banks are built upon it. That is why the Socialist party invest their funds in this country rather than invest them in Russia. Would the Government look favourably, in the development of the fishing industry in Newfoundland, upon some co-operative system gradually to draw the savings out of the pockets of the people and to use them in industry? It might be possible to get the fishermen to combine and to use their savings in purchasing new boats, or in establishing new canneries or factories for preserving their fish. It is obvious, with scattered populations round the coast, that anything in the nature of the reorganisation of fishing will be very expensive, and unless you can induce the men engaged in the industry to use their savings in its development there cannot be the progressive growth of the industry which all would desire.
I hope that the Government will not follow the suggestions of one or two speakers and try to bring about large schemes of land development in Newfoundland for the purpose of food production. No doubt it might be possible to do it in some respects, but when one remembers the closeness of Canada and America, I do not think that the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) to try to bring about large developments on these lines is sound. I ask the Government to assure the House that they will do everything possible to see that both the mining and the timber supplies of the country are developed as far as possible in the immediate future. I particularly hope that the Government will in every way possible develop the mining industry in Newfoundland, because I believe that it is the only real
way of bringing in some of our own people. Wherever there have been developments in mining in the Empire they have, sooner or later, absorbed a considerable number of our own people. I am strongly inclined to the belief, as are many other Members of the House when it is a question of making a loan or a grant, or giving a guaranteed loan, as in the case of Austria, to the people overseas, that I could make out as good a case for my own fishermen as any Government could make out for Newfoundlanders.
Although we are willing to make this grant, and to pass the Bill as it now stands, it ought to be made clear in this House that by so doing we are placing additional burdens upon our people and upon our own industries. That fact ought not to be forgotten by anyone in this House. We are willing to come to the assistance of Newfoundland in a state of emergency, and I feel sure that, although it will injure people in our own country, it is only right that we should make this effort on their behalf.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. DAVID MASON: Like the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I support the Second Reading of this Bill, and I agree, after reading the very admirable report, that it is essential to carry out the obligations of the Bill. The fishery, as we know, has been the main industry, but, as the hon. Gentleman well said, there are mining and other resources which certainly would give greater security if they were developed on sound lines than if development were almost entirely confined to fishing. I support the Second Reading of the Bill in the main because it is a reversion to the traditional role of this country. The traditional role of this country is that of a great export shipping nation and an international banker. If we study our history, we find that a great deal of our wealth has come from pursuing that role. The income of this country from lending operations amounts to something like £70,000,000 in a normal year. In a normal year also in shipping our income amounts to £130,000,000. Therefore, we derive £200,000,000 from the pursuing of that role. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), the other day, spoke of the black-coated brigade rotting in suburbia because of the depression and
the terribly hard times that many people are experiencing, and he was anxious to widen the scope of the Unemployment Bill on their behalf. I had a great deal of sympathy with what he was saying. He desired to extend the Bill to those with an income running up to £300, £400 or £500 a year.
If we could restore London as the monetary centre and the lender to the world, that would bring business and employment to this country and it would stimulate industry and benefit the working classes, to whom the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) referred in his interesting and witty speech. To imagine that the bondholders are criminals and that anyone who has shares in anything is doing wrong is absurd. We all have some shares in something; otherwise, how would industry be carried on? I have been more often in the Lobby with the Labour Opposition than any other Liberal, but I must part company with them to-day when they oppose this Measure. What is their attack on the Bill? They say, in the words of the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), who attacked the Financial Resolution, that they are Socialists and that Newfoundland ought to be governed on those principles, and left to her own resources. If Newfoundland were a Socialist State, what would be her resources to-day? She has great resources, but the one resource which she lacks is credit. Where can she get credit? If she were a Socialist State she would have to go to some capitalist to get credit. Credit is based upon capital. How is she to get credit? Does the hon. Member seriously suggest that she must not apply to a capitalist country for credit? However much hon. Members may attack capital, they cannot get away from the fact that capital is the basis of credit and therefore Newfoundland comes to Great Britain, which still is a great capitalist State, and asks for credit.
Hon. Members above the Gangway desire that Newfoundland should become a Socialist State, and they are entitled to argue that point, but we are dealing with a concrete case of a defaulting country which is rich in natural resources, which has a manly, vigorous and brave people, few in numbers, a picked race we might say, men who have shown in the War that they were abnormally skilled as seamen, unequalled in bravery, but they are now in difficulties, their country is in
difficulties, and one resource which they lack is credit. They come to Great Britain, and Great Britain has placed their securities upon the trustee list. That trustee list extends to the whole of the British Empire. If we allow a default in that list, if we let in a little water or allow one default in one portion of that trustee list, it will affect all the others. It will even affect British credit. To put it on no higher basis than the maintenance of our own credit, it is of the utmost importance that we should not allow any default, in order that we may maintain and improve the credit of the whole.
It is self-evident that this policy is not in the interests of the bondholder only. I have a great deal of sympathy with the bondholder. He holds the security, but that security is dependent upon the credit of Newfoundland. If she has no credit, cannot develop herself and has to come to Great Britain for credit, surely it will not only benefit the bondholder to maintain her credit, but it will help Newfoundland and the general credit of Newfoundland by enabling her to maintain the interest upon her debt, thereby enabling her to engage in further developments, in opening up the resources of the island. If she does not default and we guarantee the interest upon her loans, that will enable her to obtain other capital for developments, and the islanders themselves will derive great benefit as a result of that procedure.
The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) made a very interesting speech, and asked that some consideration should be given to the islander who would have to pay taxes. He suggested that some provision should be made for representation being given to the Newfoundland people and said that he was prepared to put down an Amendment to that effect. I agree that if we could give representation to the Newfoundlander in this scheme it would be in accordance with the democratic principle that where there is taxation there should be representation. The hon. Member for Bridgeton said that in supporting the Measure we were pursuing a policy which was the negation of democracy. Surely, if Great Britain is going to make advances to Newfoundland, guaranteeing her loans, that is a species of obtaining money by taxation, and deserves representation. It
is not a negation but is a carrying out of the democratic principle that if we guarantee her loans and make advances to Newfoundland we should have representation through our three Commissioners who, with three Commissioners from Newfoundland, are to carry on the government of Newfoundland. I agree that if some provision could be made for the taxpayer in Newfoundland to be represented it would carry out the constitutional principle on a democratic basis.
Those who criticise the Bill suggest that we are devoting ourselves to helping an outstanding Dominion and neglecting our people at home. I yield to no one in support of any measure for the development of our own Islands, any measure of public works that can be carried out reproductively in these Islands, but we have to remember that the number of works that can be started in this country is limited. We may do something for housing and something in public works, but unless we can restore London as a monetary centre and can again begin to lend freely all over the world, we shall not get out of our depression. To get out of the depression we must increase the purchasing power of the people. By merely engaging in palliatives or public works, we do not advance our case, and do not get out of chaos and depression.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Who sent the pound down?

Mr. MASON: My right hon. and gallant Friend is always thinking about the pound. The policy that I am supporting will improve the pound. I desire to see the pound improved. I desire to see a legitimate rise in prices brought about by the pursuit of the policy that I am advocating. We must lend freely. I do not suggest indiscriminate lending over the Empire or wasteful and unwise lending. Every scheme, this scheme and every scheme, must be considered on its merits very carefully, and the lending should be done with wise discrimination. If we can lend freely and restore London as the monetary centre of the world and begin lending abroad, every loan that is floated in this country will mean—

Mr. HANNON: Surely London is a monetary centre now. Why does the hon. Member talk about restoration?

Mr. MASON: I mean the restoration of the Gold Standard, so that a bill on London is as good as a; old. If we restore London and restore specie payments—

Mr. HANNON: Is not a bill on London now as good as gold?

Mr. MASON: No. A bill on London is not as good as gold to-day, but it would not be in order to discuss that now. If we can restore London and increase the applications to London for loans from all parts of the world, it will mean that every loan that is floated in London will go out of this country in goods or services. If a loan is floated in London for an Argentine railway, it does not go out in cash. This Newfoundland loan will not go in cash, but in goods and services. Therefore, if we can increase the facilities for lending in London, and London resumes its ancient role as the great international banker, we shall increase the purchasing power of the people—

Mr. HANNON: London has never lost it.

Mr. MASON: On that point—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I hope the hon. Member will remember the remark he made a few moments ago.

Mr. MASON: The remark about not being in order? I must admit that the remarks of the hon. Member rather stimulate me, but I do not intend to pursue that subject further, except to say that the action incorporated in this Bill will, I believe, if we continue to follow such a line, lead to our getting rid of our depression and to improving the status of the working classes, whom hon. Members above the Gangway particularly represent. We, too, claim to represent the working classes and that we are a working class party as much as hon. Members are. We do not think that they have a monopoly in the representation of the working classes. I believe that there are many Conservatives of the working class.

Mr. HANNON: Hear, hear. Not many Liberals.

Mr. MASON: We claim that we are entitled to speak for all classes of the community. If we can help Newfound-
land now, if we can carefully nurse the country, it will recoup us and will assist the development of a policy of lending freely but with discrimination, which will be of great help in getting us out of the prevailing depression. The commissioners to be appointed will, of course, be men of judgment and capacity, I cannot imagine they will be appointed unless they are, and, therefore, if such a policy is carried out, then in time Newfoundland will find herself worthy of the confidence we have in her, and the House of Commons will live to rejoice that it supported the Second Reading of this Bill.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: While there are sentimental reasons why Newfoundland should have one more chance, there is one feature in the Bill for which I have the greatest dislike, a dislike which is, apparently, shared by the party opposite, though perhaps not for the same reasons. When this country, for the best of reasons, admitted the Colonies and Dominions to the Trustee Acts, it entered upon a semi-obligation, not one to be commended and one which, I am afraid, by this Bill we may appear to support. By giving a special privilege to the Colonies and Dominions to be put on the Trustee List, we unconsciously gave investors—I mean ignorant investors—the idea that they were taking no risks in taking up Colonial or Dominion bonds. Since then such investors have had the idea that the British Government in times of difficulties will take over the responsibility for these bonds. For once I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I am not at all sure that in making ourselves responsible for the whole of the loans of Newfoundland we are not incurring a liability running into hundreds and may be thousands of millions of pounds in the future. It is only a short time ago that some of the Australian States, indeed the Australian Commonwealth, having incurred rashly great liabilities, were quite prepared to contemplate default, and if that had occurred the question was whether we should step in and rescue them from the difficulty.
The same thing might occur with other Dominions. By guaranteeing £17,000,000 under the Bill, we shall quite distinctly lead the public to believe that in times of
difficulty we shall be responsible for all of the Dominion's loans. The initial mistake which we made some years ago gave a false cachet to Colonial securities. There are three classes of British securities, first, a direct obligation such as our War Loans and Consols, then there is the indirect obligation, which means that this country had guaranteed a loan like the Irish loan, and there is the third class, such as trade facilities, which we also guarantee. The securities which we guarantee do not fetch quite the same price, they yield a little more than direct securities, and the person who buys them knows that he may have to wait a little longer for his interest, the debtor may fail to pay, and then the British Government will pay. In the case of a large amount of Dominion securities we have given no obligation, but the holders still seem to think that we shall help them out.
These securities of the Dominions are issued at prices which yield the holder considerably more than direct or indirect British Government securities, and the people who buy them know very well what they are buying. The securities of the Newfoundland Government a short time ago stood at 55; they stand at 100 to-day. In the case of Australia, the securities fell to 50; they stand at 100 to-day, because Australia has completely put her house in order, they have met the situation with confidence and pluck and their Government is entitled to all respect. But there may come a time when a Government will come into power there which may play just the same tricks as were played a few years ago, and it may be the case that we shall be asked, in view of what we are doing here today, to get them out of their difficulties. That is the serious risk we are running. I am in agreement with hon. Members of the Opposition that people who hold Newfoundland bonds expected to get a higher return than if they had gone into British Government loans, they ran that risk, and they would have lost their money but for the British Government intervening. It is a bad precedent. The people in Newfoundland are ignorant. They are presumed to have a constitutional Government, but the fishermen rarely read the newspapers and take no interest in their Government. I do not
quite know how their Members of Parliament are elected, whether they vote for themselves or who votes for them. But these ignorant people have permitted their financiers and political rulers to get them into this trouble. Nobody has pointed out to these poor people, or, if they have they have not appreciated the fact, that if you have a deficit for 10 years you will have to borrow; that if you lose credit you can no longer borrow to pay the deficit; and that in that way lies ruin.
I feel that the Government will have great difficulty in finding a Governor and three just men from this country and three just men from the other side to serve. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) made a most interesting speech on the difficulties which these seven men will have to face. I agree with him that in certain circumstances a trading or chartered company has done great service in the past, and I think that some such company would be of immense service to the new Governor and his six assistants in carrying through any reforms which will enable Newfoundland to recover. It is a doubtful proposition whether Newfoundland can ever recover in the sense of being able to pay the large debts which have accumulated already or the presents which we are going to make, but I think for sentimental reasons that this House is right in giving the Dominion a chance. The people of this country are under no obligation to take over the bondholders at this juncture and make themselves responsible for the whole £20,000,000 sterling for that purpose, and then to lend new money.
I think that the new money, which I would not stint for the next few years, with good government and capable advisers, would enable the country to be developed and we should then know what it is worth. After that the people of this country would be entitled to demand interest on the advances made and then some arrangement might be made to pay the whole of the £1,000,000 a year. I was pleased to notice that in regard to the difficulty of finding a Governor who could appeal to the poor people of Newfoundland the hon. Member for Altrincham suggested that they might send out two Members from the British House of Parliament. We have one Member who is a most persuasive speaker, one who we
know can give good advice and instruction to the poor people, the hon. Member for Bridgeton, who, I understand, is prepared to go out not as Governor, but in some high capacity. With his matchless gift for approaching poor people I commend the suggestion to the Government that they might consider asking the hon. Member to spare us his society here, which we all appreciate, and go out to take up a position in the Newfoundland administration.

6.40 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I entirely agree with the last few sentences of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell). I think it would be an excellent thing to send out the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who would make a much better Governor than many. But really the speech of the hon. Member has been made six months too late. It is all very well for him to say that he agrees with the Labour party in opposing the Bill to-day; why did he not make the speech six months ago when the fatal step was taken? It is too late now. Six months ago we decided to pay, otherwise Newfoundland would have defaulted. That was the moment when the step was taken, and the hon. Member should have protested then. I think it is a very serious step; indeed, much more serious than the hon. Member has made out. This is not a question of taking over the responsibilities of a Dominion, but of preserving the financial honour of bonds not merely across the seas but in this country, for which we have given the sanction of trustee security. Having done this in the case of Newfoundland, how are you going to refuse it to Glasgow?
In this Bill we have, for the first time, something for our money. I am in favour of the Bill. Six months ago we were pledging British credit for all time on the Dominion's loans without getting anything for it. Here we are getting something. We are paying £6,000,000, but we have bought back Newfoundland. Newfoundland has sacrificed self-government in order to restore her credit. I am delighted that they have agreed to this step, because I think people should realise that when bankruptcy stares them in the face they must make some surrender in order to carry on. The real question is, can we make a success of Newfoundland now that we have got it back? I disagree profoundly with the hon. Member
for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). I do not think that it will be half so difficult to manage Newfoundland with six appointed advisers as it was to manage Kenya with an elected council. The comparison is very close. It is true that in Kenya the white population is only about 15,000, whereas in Newfoundland there are nearly 200,000 people, but in both cases we have passed through times—happily they are past in Kenya—when deficit followed deficit. The hon. Member for Altrincham knows perfectly well the extreme difficulty he had in that country in keeping the finances sound and the country satisfied. It would be easier with six counsellors and without a Settlers Association.

Sir E. GRIGG: Is the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the taxpayers should have no representation whatever?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, certainly. Under this scheme Newfoundland has no representation whatever. I wish that Kenya had not either.

Sir E. GRIGG: What about the natives?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When you give the natives a vote it will be a very different thing. Then I would be entirely with the hon. Member, but until then, no. Here you have the responsibility thrown entirely upon this House and the Secretary of State. I rather demur from the suggestion of the Secretary of State that his power there would be short lived. I do not think he can make a success of it, or that we can, unless there is a considerable number of years for the scheme to run. The first problem is that, however excellent your Governor and your advisers, you are bound to get dissatisfaction among the people in Newfoundland. How can that best be overcome?
I beg the Secretary of State to consider now the point which I brought up before, and that is the urgent necessity of having in this House some representation of Newfoundland or of any other Dominion that comes along in the same way. After all, the position of Newfoundland will not be very different from the position of Scotland. Newfoundland's population will justify one Member here, and if we are to tax them, if we are to make their laws, if we are to know the dissatisfactions that will arise in Newfoundland, it seems to me to be urgently desirable that in this
Bill we should arrange for a really great new departure, the beginning of an Imperial Parliament with representation here of those Dominions which through difficult financial circumstances have decided to come back to the Mother Country. I cannot see the slightest objection to it. There is the merely technical objection that a Member for Newfoundland will be passing laws and levying taxation upon the people of this country. So do the Scots to-day. I do not think that that is an objection which anyone in any part of the House would take. We here as a body should welcome the presence of a Newfoundland Member. Observe that in the very tenuous opposition that there was to that resolution in the Newfoundland Chamber, the suggestion was made and was voted on that they should ask for a representative in the. Imperial Parliament to voice the views of the country. It is not embodied in the report of the commission, but there is no earthly reason why we as a sovereign House should not make the change and have here a representative of Newfoundland.

Mr. PYBUS: What qualification would a Dominion or a Colony need to have in order to get a seat in this House? Would it be bankruptcy?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I would not make it a qualification, but I would make the circumstances as they are in Newfoundland the excuse for a new departure which I hope might grow. We may see other countries and Dominions in very much the same position. Certainly the pill would be gilt if they could get representation in this House to make up for the destruction of their representative institution.

Mr. HANNON: Would that be after an election in Newfoundland?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As elected by Newfoundland, yes. When we have a general election here include Newfoundland. Why not? I see no reason against it. I should welcome representation of the Channel Islands. We might get them, too. But this is only one element in the possibility of making a success of our government of Newfoundland. It is true that the success of that government depends very largely upon the people you send out. In the first place I would beg the Secretary of State to consider the advantages of having the same type of
man as is selected by the Colonial Office, employed in the civil administration and the legal administration of Newfoundland. The Englishman is appreciated in that country. The type you send out would be an advertisement for England. You would get just that beginning of the absolutely impeccable, incorruptible class of Englishman who in the Dominion or Colony which do an enormous amount of good.
Take the case of the Colonial Office servants that we have in Nigeria, for instance. There we have the pick of England considering their job as something really worth while, making their mark on the world and on history, recognised by the natives of the Territory as being their best friends, being indeed the constructors of their new civilisation. I would send to Newfoundland the same type of man to do the same type of work. Send them out young and unmarried. Let them marry out there. Social intercourse is the secret of the whole thing. If you can get, not promoted policemen as in your wretched Protectorates, but this type of Englishman carrying on the government of that Colony, he will be received with open arms there, and that will make for a permanent union between the people of Newfoundland and the people here.
There is another thing. This is not a question just of money. What we really need is to export, not so much English gold as English people. In Newfoundland and Labrador we have a vast undeveloped country. It is said in this country that there is not land enough, but that is absolutely untrue. You cannot say that of Newfoundland and Labrador. Labrador is mostly under snow, I know. So is Scotland. Newfoundland is a country very nearly as large as Great Britain and with a population about that of Bradford. A good deal of the country is mountains and forests, utterly undeveloped. We are not allowed to send our people to Australia and Canada; they are rejected from every one of our own Dominions. Now we have a chance of starting real colonisation schemes which would help our unemployed and at the same time be a permanent bond between Newfoundland and ourselves. That would make for the prosperity of Newfoundland. I am not one of the school which
I know is too prevalent on the opposite side of the House—the school which believes that the prosperity of a country varies inversely with its population. I believe that the more people you have in Newfoundland the more prosperous Newfoundland will be. I should welcome a chance being given to people here, to assist emigration in Newfoundland and Labrador. I should regret that it was necessary for them to go there when the land in this country is equally available, if only the price were equally low.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: What would they grow in Newfoundland? Of course the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the country?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not know it.

Sir B. FALLE: I do. There is nothing to be grown there. You can catch fish and kill caribou and take salmon, but I doubt if you could grow even potatoes there.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Send them out and they will be like the settlers in South Africa, who could turn their hands to anything. You would get the ordinary English settlers, as I have seen them in South Africa, who would get many things to grow. It is only a question of how much capita] you put in to make things grow. I have seen cabbages growing in asphalt. The application of doses of capital will vary your margin of cultivation in every country. Do not tell me that you cannot grow in Newfoundland things which will keep people alive, seeing that there is a considerable number of people there already being kept alive. At any rate give our chaps a chance. If you give a man a piece of land he will make something of it.
That brings me to the most important section of the report of the Commission, dealing with the land question. The Commission point out that most of the land has been alienated, that it has been bought up by syndicates and companies, of which we hear so much, and by speculators, and that it is lying idle and undeveloped. The whole country has passed into the hands of private persons who cannot use it. This admirably Conservative and sensible Commission reports as follows:
We recommend, therefore, that all un-worked land, however held, should bear an
annual tax of so much per acre, and that in the event of the tax being in arrears and unpaid for six months the licence or lease should be cancelled, or in cases where land is held in fee simple that the land should revert to the Crown.
The proposal includes land situated in Newfoundland and Labrador. For different reasons from those which moved the hon. Member for Altrincham, that seems to me to be an admirable suggestion. Seventy per cent. of the revenues in Newfoundland comes from import duties—a perfect heaven for tariff reformers—and only 30 per cent. comes from indirect taxation or any other source. Here is a chance to get a little direct taxation out of the speculators and people who have grabbed the lands of Newfoundland. Then you will find that that land will come back into the hands of the State, or else that the tax, when paid, will induce the gentlemen who have speculated in the land to get out and allow somebody to use the land which they have hitherto monopolised. The principle applies in this country as well as in that. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions what he is going to do about it. If he leaves it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide, be will never get a penny out of the land of Newfoundland. But are these recommendations going to be adopted? This tax is not an ideal tax, I admit; it is so much per acre on the unused land in order that the price of that land might go down, and it might become available either for the small concern or for the big company, whichever you like.
The alternative to that, I am sorry to say, which was advocated both by the City of London and by the Government of Kenya, is the establishment of these gigantic chartered companies. It is just another form of scuttle; you get rid of your responsibility for governing the country and hand it over to the City of London. I shall be surprised if we do not, but I hope that we shall not do that in Newfoundland. It is merely a form of abdication—the desire to get rid of responsibility and at the same time to establish a chartered company, which is not always so successful as it was in Nigeria. Like the old Government in Newfoundland, a chartered company will go ever more and more bankrupt and will forget its duties to the people of Newfoundland in its anxiety to pay salaries to its officials, and the last state
of that country will be worse than the first. No; keep away from chartered companies, keep away from big concessions, and make the land of Newfoundland available both for the people of Newfoundland and for the people of this country. The taxpayers of this country are paying £3,000,000, and that is our justification for saying that we are entitled to increase the population and the prosperity of that country by the organised and even subsidised and supported colonisation of any people who are willing to go out and try to wrest a living from the land of Newfoundland.
I should like to make a small suggestion. It is very important to have the culteured English permanent official in that country. It is almost as important to have stationed in Newfoundland some of our troops. Why Halifax, when it might be St. John's? People spending money there will help to make the place prosperous and will immediately create a permanent vested interest in Nwfoundland itself in favour of retaining the connection with this country.

Captain P. MACDONALD: If I might interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman', there are no British troops in Halifax; they are all Canadians.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Send them to St. John's from. Egypt, then, where they are not wanted. The Egyptians do not pay them in Egypt; we pay them. It is a very useful link to have a representative of the British Army in a colony. Social contact also comes in, and you help to cement the real union between Great Britain and what may be described as the new Empire. This is a precedent, and it is no use either the Government or any hon. Member for the City of London saying that it is not. In Newfoundland the Government has been corrupt. We have done these things for a Government of which no one in this House or in this country could be proud. If the same situation arose in one of our other Dominions would it not have even a stronger claim, and would the bondholders not have a stronger claim? You have to consider your long-range policy. To my mind, the long range policy should be the reconstruction of a smaller British Empire, it is true, but the reconstruction of a body more united than that which we have at present; and this House, with representatives from the new Empire,
would have a united and solid responsibility for all parts of it. Hon. Members know that I have urgently suggested that the difficulties in India should be met in somewhat the same way. The possibilities of this scheme for the future development of Great Britain are worth considering, and the first step is to get representation in this House of the unrepresented people of Newfoundland.

7.7 p.m.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I am going to support this Bill, but with many misgivings. As explained by the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), it is very hard to see where this sort of thing is going to end. I should like to support the last words of the previous speaker. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke about the danger in India; I wonder if in a few years to come we shall not be faced with a similar Bill to help out the newly-appointed Government of India. I can understand an hon. or a right hon. Gentleman rising in this House and pointing out that it is not really the fault of the ryot, the poor cultivator of India, who has been misled by the Indian politician, and that on those grounds we are really responsible for getting him out of his trouble. In a sense I understand that all this trouble has come about in Newfoundland owing to corrupt government. Every country deserves the Government it gets, and many countries get all they deserve. I should, however, like to ask whether any steps have been taken to bring the corrupt politicians of Newfoundland to book? We are going to vote a lot of money which we could very well use in this country. We more or less look after our politicians in this country and prevent this sort of thing from happening, but if we are going to allow a free hand to Dominions and see them through their troubles, surely we ought to demand that the people responsible—in this case the politicians—shall be brought to book and give some account of why these things have happened.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I do not understand what the hon. Member means by the politicians being brought to book. The Royal Commission reported that the fault is not entirely with this Government or the last, but that the trouble has taken place over a series of years; the whole
position was corrupt. Does my hon. Friend suggest that the Government should institute a prosecution against everybody? Is it not far better to face the fact that mistakes have been made? We want at least to give Newfoundland a better chance for the future rather than blame her for the past.

Sir A. KNOX: I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but surely there is a definite cause to this trouble. It is perfectly well known that Ministers can always get away with it and that no one else can. If an hon. Member puts £100 out of his own money into a bad investment he has to stand the racket, but when a Minister does the same thing, he never has to answer for the consequences. Surely someone should answer for the consequences if Minister after Minister has acted not only foolishly but corruptly.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has once more justified his reputation of being the best Imperialist in this House. He has spoken strongly in favour of Imperial settlements, and that is what is largely needed at the present time. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is always interesting, but not as a rule very constructive. This afternoon he has blamed the Government for what they propose to do in Newfoundland, but the solution of the question that he offered is to say to the people of Newfoundland, "Here is your island; make your own of it and do the best you can with it." We know that the people of Newfoundland are at present in a state of misery and suffering; their credit has gone. The hon. Member would make over the island to them in this state, and the result would be that the suffering and misery would be intensified. I sympathise, however, to a certain extent with the argument of the hon. Gentleman when he speaks of the size of the responsibility that we are undertaking and the largeness of the gift—£800,000—that we are making without any guarantee from Newfoundland.
I would remind the Secretary of State for the Dominions that it is very difficult for him to justify such a gift to Newfoundland and then to leave the ex-service settlers in Victoria in the state in
which they are. The hon. Member for Bridgeton referred to those settlers. We know the story of those settlers and we know that, as long as their claims remain unsettled, so long will there be an obstacle to migration from this country. We must remember that a gift of £800,000 is being made to Newfoundland because the rulers of Newfoundland have done ill. The settlers in Victoria are in the state in which they are because the Government of this country in 1922 and 1923 practically backed a scheme which was a bad scheme, and which placed a largo number of those settlers on unsuitable land. Now they have been offered settlements at a flat rate without taking into account the various circumstances of each settlement.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I do not think that he is fair. He is not doing himself justice, and he is certainly not doing me justice. He knows perfectly well that he asked me to see a deputation on Friday, himself leading the deputation, on this very matter.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was on the point of stopping the hon. Member, and telling him that he must not discuss that matter on this Debate.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to my right hon. Friend. I admit that I went too far in the matter. The hon. Member for Bridgeton referred to the contrast between the treatment that is being given to the people of Newfoundland and that given to the settlers in Victoria, and I had intended to make the same comparison. The hon. Member for Bridge-ton is a severe critic, but he is a less competent builder. He would make over the island of Newfoundland to the people and say, "Make what you can of it." Was it not, however, the people of Newfoundland who chose the rulers who have done so badly? What guarantee would there be that the same misfortunes would not happen again in a greater degree in Newfoundland? The hon. Member for Bridgeton made one observation with which I agree—that human sentiment is often more powerful than human interest in determining affairs. The story of Newfoundland is full of human sentiment and romance ever since the days when Cabot first took possession of the island in the name of the King. It is not the
first time that Newfoundland has looked to England for succour. Hon. Members, I am sure, recall the story of Sir Humphrey Gilbert who founded the first colony in Newfoundland and of how that colony failed owing to adverse circumstances and they may also recall the lines:
Sir Humphrey Gilbert, hard of hand, Knight-in-chief of the ocean sea,
Gazed from the rocks of the New Found Land
And thought of the home where his heart would be.
We know the rest of the story and how he was lost on the voyage home. Speaking on the Financial Resolution last week my hon. Friend the Member for Roth-well (Mr. Lunn) said he objected to helping people who did not help themselves. Perhaps he ought to have added that his friends would help people who helped themselves at our expense. He will understand the allusion. But I know that he is a good Imperialist and I would ask him in this matter to forget party and to remember the good of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It was refreshing in that Debate to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) who. followed the hon. Member for Rothwell. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as one who understands the Empire, showed himself a thorough supporter of what the Government are doing in this matter. The hon. Member for Rothwell said he was not prepared to believe that the island could be developed by private enterprise, but, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out in reply, the whole Empire has been developed by private enterprise.
My particular object in rising this evening, however, is to back up the appeal made to the Government by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery). He said that there were two alternatives before any Government or Commission which took over the affairs of Newfoundland, either timidly to nurse the island back to solvency or else to undertake a bold policy of settlement. That is what I regard as essential both to the island and the Empire. What we want at the present time is Empire cooperation. Speaking the other night, Mr. Bruce, who so ably represents Australia in this country, asked for the greatest possible measure of Empire cooperation. We want that co-operation in
connection with migration, in connection with trade, in connection with education. In all these matters the ablest minds of the Empire ought to be working in unison. We hope that when the new Government take office in Newfoundland they will make it their special business to develop trade and shipping between Newfoundland and this country. In every direction we see the need for protecting our industries. One was glad to read the speech of the President of the Board of Trade last night in reference to our shipping interests. It is a sorry state of things when our shipping lines have to come to terms with the foreigner in order to obtain a share of the transport to the Dominions and to our own Colonies. If the new order in Newfoundland is informed with that spirit of developing that country and developing British interests, it will result in great good both to Newfoundland and to this country.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I feel some doubt as to the wisdom of the Government in dealing with this matter as they propose to deal with it. I cannot help thinking that they have been somewhat extravagant, and I feel considerable sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) that they have shown too much tenderness in the matter of finance. As a result of our policy, and as a result of administration during the next few years, we may create for ourselves a great deal of odium and in three or four years time I fear there will be no people more unpopular in Newfoundland than the House of Commons and the people of this country. But I wish to deal with one special point to which little referencee, if any, has so far been made and I would ask the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to be good enough to deal with it in his reply. Not nearly enough attention has been given to alternative methods of dealing with this matter. There is the question of Labrador. I hope that under the new system the question of developing Labrador, possibly of selling Labrador to Canada or placing it under a chartered company, will be seriously investigated. It seems to me that the possibility of cooperation with Canada, of finding a way out of this difficulty, by associating Newfoundland with Canada rather than with
this country, has not been gone into as thoroughly as it ought to have been.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I was very careful to point out that all these possibilities were explored, including that to which the hon. Member refers, and that in Canada and Newfoundland there is no desire for it at all.

Mr. MANDER: I heard what was said by the Secretary of State, and I appreciate his point, but I cannot say that I am satisfied either with what he said or with what the report says, as a reason why we should not explore that question further. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said he would like to see Newfoundland represented in Parliament. So would I, but not in this Parliament. I would like to see them represented in the Canadian Parliament. It is obvious that, from the historical, financial and commercial points of view, that should be the ultimate destiny of Newfoundland. I agree that you cannot force them in and you cannot use undue pressure, but the circumstances are such that a greater effort might have been made and should now be made to envisage possible developments in that direction when the time comes to end the administration of the island from this country.
What is the history of this question? When Canadian confederation came about in 1867 it was anticipated that Newfoundland would join Canada. The Newfoundland delegates agreed to it and it was actually referred to in the Act, but the matter was so long delayed that, when a vote was finally taken in Newfoundland on the subject, owing to controversy and friction which had arisen meantime, the proposal for union was, to the great surprise of many people, rejected. The question arose again in 1895 when there was a financial crisis in Newfoundland, and negotiations took place between the Canadian Government and the Newfoundland Government as a result of which agreement was nearly reached. It was only a question of £1,000,000 which was between the parties. An application was made to the Government of this country to find that sum, but the Government at that time were not willing to do so and the negotiations broke down. In 1928 a debate took place in the Canadian Senate
when the general view was expressed that union was desirable if it could be negotiated between Canada and Newfoundland. Negotiations actually took place in, I think, 1930, or shortly afterwards, and it was only owing to the world depression which supervened that those negotiations were postponed.
All this shows that the inevitable and natural tendency has been in that direction. Look at it from the financial point of view. Since 1895 the currency of Newfoundland has been the dollar. All the banking is in the hands of Canadian firms and a great deal of the insurance business also. About 50 per cent. of the imports come from Canada and a great many of the families in the island are getting into the habit of sending their children to Canada for educational purposes. There has recently been a union of the Methodist and other churches in Canada and Newfoundland into the United Church of Canada. Thus there are religious, educational, financial and industrial ties. One of the largest iron ore firms in the Empire, in Belle Isle, is owned by Canadian capital and one of the two large paper mills is owned by Canadian capital. It seems to me that the circumstances when this crisis arose were such as to justify serious negotiations on the basis of Canada coming to the rescue of Newfoundland. I now come to the objections which are raised to that proposal, and I would like in that connection to draw attention to one or two passages from the report. Paragraph 533 states:
Now, in 1933, the subject comes again to the forefront and it was urged by some of the witnesses who came before us that the union of the two Dominions would provide a solution of Newfoundland's difficulties and would at the same time lead to the consolidation of an enlarged Canadian Dominion. But it is clear for a number of reasons … that unless the Canadian Government were prepared to offer strikingly generous terms no such solution would be acceptable to Newfoundland public opinion.
When you have a Colony in the condition in which Newfoundland is at present, when they have so mismanaged their affairs and indulged in such an orgy of corruption, are they in a position to say, "Our terms are so and so and we will not accept less"? Of course, they will not accept less when they have the offer of a grant from the British Government. Naturally they are not then in-
clined to make terms which ordinarily a person in depressed financial circumstances would be inclined to make. I think it has been made far too easy for Newfoundland to avoid entering into serious negotiations with the Canadian Government. In paragraph 540 of the report we find the following passage:
Apart, however, from the hostility which proposals for political union might be expected to evoke among certain interests in Newfoundland, it is fair to say that such proposals would at least receive more enlightened consideration and discussion to-day than would have been the case, say twenty years ago.
There you have it recorded that there are certain interests in the island, certain financial and industrial interests, who would be disadvantaged by union.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Including the corrupt Ministers.

Mr. MANDER: It does not seem to me that that is any reason to stand in the way of union between these two States—that there are certain vested interests, not very reputable or sound in certain cases, though not in all, taking upon themselves the responsibility of saying, "We object." They are able to get away with it because of the very lucrative offer that is being made by the British Government. Paragraph 542 of the report says:
The possible disadvantages which might be felt by a small unit on being absorbed by a large one are apt to be stressed while the positive advantages of such a course are ignored.
That is always so but this is the interesting point—
Chief among the possible disadvantages is placed the necessity for direct taxation hitherto unknown to the fisherman in Newfoundland.
Is that a good reason for not negotiating a union between the two countries—that they might have to pay more direct taxation than they do now? It seems to me a good reason in the opposite direction. I submit we have not yet had from the Government sufficient explanation or justification of the reasons why a more determined effort was not made to find a solution on the lines I have indicated. I hope that, whatever may be said with regard to the past, my hon. Friend will be able to indicate that during this period of months and years that lies in front of us the matter will be gone into with all seriousness from this point of
view. I think it would be disastrous if the impression were created that after five or six years of admirable, upright administration by British civil servants and others, as will no doubt take place, we shall simply hand the Colony back to the same people who have made such a terrible mess of it, and there will be no reason why they should not do exactly the same thing again.
I hope, and I think it should be said on the Floor of this House, that we shall use all our good offices in the most friendly and diplomatic way—and I hope my right hon. Friend will use his well known powers in that direction—to bring the two countries together, so that when finally we have set Newfoundland on her feet again, she will find her future destiny, not as an independent unit. She has shown herself too small an area for that, and she has a population, after all, of not much more than one large constituency in this country. I think it would be the wisest policy, not only for Newfoundland, but for this country and for the British Empire as a whole, if she took the position which history, tradition, and her interests at the present time show to be the wisest and soundest, and in the long run the only possible policy for her.

7.32 p.m.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: In rising to support this Bill, I cannot help expressing a certain amount of apprehension about the terms of the Bill and sympathising with the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) when he talked about the financial position of Newfoundland with regard to the bondholders. I think it has been made far too easy in the past for that country and other countries to borrow money, and unless some steps are taken to inform bondholders that their risk is a real risk, there is every possibility of other countries within the Empire becoming in very much the same position as that in which Newfoundland finds herself to-day. In listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to-day, and in reading the Royal Commission's Report, one cannot help being impressed by the tragic condition of this little island of Newfoundland. If, as the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) says, every country gets the Government it deserves, one
wonders what poor little Newfoundland has done to deserve the type of politician inflicted upon her in recent years. That politics should become an unclean thing which no self-respecting person will touch, is a very sad reflection upon people who undertake the government of their country.
To my mind, it is the inevitable outcome or consequence of a system which prevails, not only in Newfoundland, but in other parts of the Empire, and I attribute the present position of that country to the absence of a permanent Civil Service. That every time there is a change of Government in the country every holder of office should be swept out by the incoming Government and his position filled by party hangers-on and job-seekers of the other party, is bound to lead to the corruption which has been going on in Newfoundland for a hundred years, and I hope that before any commission that is set up by this Government hands over the reins of government to the people of Newfoundland again, it will make it a condition that there should be a permanent Civil Service, quite outside of party politics, and that there should be somebody similar to our Auditor and Accountant-General, who cannot be dismissed by any Government, but who should be responsible to the Governor-General or to His Majesty. In that way you might ensure a future Government on sound economic lines; otherwise, I see no hope for an island of this size—as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said, about the size of an ordinary constituency in this country—ever becoming a sound economic unit in itself. It can only be that if it is developed on broad lines and if it follows a policy of rigid economy and has its finances very carefully guarded, but if you allow successive Governments to take over private enterprises and try to run them on State lines, there is no hope whatsoever for this small island ever becoming a self-supporting unit.
Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have suggested that this sorry state of affairs in Newfoundland is due to private enterprise, but I submit that those hon. Members have not read the Report of the Royal Commission. If they will read it, they will find that most of the losses are due to State enterprises. Take, for instance, the railway. They state that
the cost of the railway, from first to last, has been equal to half the present public debt, and that its upkeep demands an outlay greater than the country is ever likely to afford; and they suggest that the branch lines should be abandoned. It is a State railway, run on uneconomic lines, as all State railways have been throughout the Empire.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: It was taken over after the private firm had failed.

Captain MAC ONALD: But they were in a far more favourable position then than they would have been otherwise, because they did not have to pay the compensation or to pay the bondholders. Therefore, there was every opportunity for the State to run it on economic lines. Take the State hotel in St. John's, which was a private enterprise and always paid while it was a private enterprise, but has never paid since it was taken over by the State. I therefore submit that hon. Members should make a very careful scrutiny of the Report of the Royal Commission before making those suggestions. Another suggestion of the Commission is that the dry dock should be handed over to private enterprise, and I think that is the only hope for that country. I agree with the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), who deplored the fact that this country was going to try to run the island on State lines and who suggested that it should be handed over to a chartered company. I cannot, however, see any chartered company taking over bankrupt railways, especially as there is no hope for them to be run on economic lines.
There is another opportunity, and that is in the substitution, as can easily be done, of other means of transport for these railways, such as air travel, and also the development of road transport. If the transport of the island is handed over to a private company, and it is allowed to develop other means of communication on whatever lines it likes—as is being done to-day in this country, where the railways are being allowed to run coach services and so on in substitution for railway transport, and in that way they are flourishing as compared with what they were some years ago—that is the only hope for Newfoundland. They can
never make a State railway costing as much as this one, pay.
I do not agree with some hon. Members who say that there is no hope for agriculture in this island. Unless the agricultural industry in the island is developed, there is very little hope of their ever having a favourable trade balance. I have visited Newfoundland, and I have been there when agriculture was much more flourishing than it is to-day. There again it is very interesting to read the Report of the Royal Commission, which says that agriculture in the island is very gravely neglected and which gives a few examples. For instance, in the period from 1921 to 1932 the quantity of cows in the island decreased from 18,000 to 11,800, of sheep from 86,700 to 60,000, of pigs from 14,600 to 5,800, and of potatoes from 529,000 bushels to 447,000 bushels. These are all things that can be grown in the island in far greater quantities, particularly pigs, and as their import of pig products last year was of the value of £500,000, there is no earthly reason why they should not only grow the present quantity of pig meat, but five times that quantity, because we know from our recent experience in this country how rapidly that product can be grown.
I submit that the Minister of Agriculture could give the Commissioners who are going out there some valuable information, not only with regard to the pig marketing scheme, but with regard to other marketing schemes, in order that the markets of the island might be developed. That is very important indeed. If they are to have a favourable trade balance, they must first of all attend to the marketing of their products, which has been shamefully neglected. They must also develop new products and find markets for what they already produce, such as ore, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has done as much as he has to try to get the steel manufacturers in this country to take ore from Newfoundland. If hon. Members study the trade returns, they will find that Newfoundland has been having to sell ore to almost every country but this country; and there is great hope there for development.
I think that Canada's misfortune in this connection is Great Britain's opportunity. It gives this country an oppor-
tunity to prove to the world that she is worthy of being the centre of a great Empire, and it depends very much upon who the Commissioners are who are sent out to do this very important work. We do not know yet who they will be, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will succeed in getting the very best men possible, because it will be a very hard task indeed, and under the best possible circumstances it will be very difficult to bring that small island, with its small population, back even to its former prosperity or to make it a sound economic unit.
There is one feature of this situation that I do not particularly like. The Governor-General is to preside over these commissioners, and there may therefore be the possibility of His Majesty's representative in the island being dragged into conflict with the people. I hope that that may not occur and that there is no danger of any odium on the part of the people falling upon His Majesty's representative in the island, because I think that would be a very deplorable thing. I do not think that the suggestion that Newfoundland should have a representative in this House is very practicable, but I hope it will have some representation in this country while the commission exists. For some time it had no High Commissioner in this country, but I am told there is one here now, and he no doubt will be able to get into touch with the right hon. Gentleman and keep him informed of the public opinion in Newfoundland. I hope that this very fortunate and far-reaching Measure will have unanimous support, that the commission set up by the right hon. Gentleman will be successful in bringing about greater prosperity to that unfortunate island, and that by the time it is handed over to our successors it will be in a far more prosperous state than it has ever been before.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: The House will agree that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) has made an interesting contribution to the Debate. He called attention to the Civil Service in Newfoundland, and that is a matter which will at once command the careful consideration of those of us who support this Bill. In the report which was prepared in such
an admirable and comprehensive way by a Royal Commission, the reorganisation of the Civil Service was dealt with on page 202, and I should like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to it. It is almost impossible for Members of this House who are acquainted with the constitution of our own Civil Service in this country and in many of the Dominions to believe that such a condition of affairs could be possible in any part of the Empire. I would make a particular appeal to the Government to instruct to the newly appointed commissioners to make one of their immediate tasks the reconstitution and re-establishment of the Civil Service in Newfoundland on the model of the Civil Service of this country.
The administration of this island is a historic disgrace to the British Empire, and I have the greatest sympathy with the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), who asked if any steps could be taken to bring to book the politicians responsible for the appalling condition of affairs which has resulted from their administration. Is there any means of calling to account the politicians who in one Government after another systematically destroyed the interests of their own country for their personal benefit? The story of government in Newfoundland is one of the grossest cases of maladministration that can be produced since the Middle Ages and, if the politicians responsible for it had existed in those days, they would have received very short shrift.
I wish to ask the Under-Secretary whether any arrangement will be made under the new régime for the manufactured products of this country to receive preferential treatment in Newfoundland. Will it be part of the policy of the new Government that, in view of the responsibility to be taken by the people of this country to finance Newfoundland in its exigency, we shall have appropriate preferential treatment as against other countries for our manufactured products?
An important point was made by an hon. Member when he said that the whole question of land settlement and the reorganisation of agriculture in the island should be an immediate part of the work of the commission. The list showing the decay of agricultural pro-
duction given by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight was very striking, as, indeed, is everything in connection with the social and economic conditions in that island of misery under the politicians who have been ruling.
The House listened with particular interest to the weighty speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), who, with several other hon. Members, made it quite plain that it would be a great misfortune if the disaster which has happened in Newfoundland and which has caused this country with generous instincts to come to its assistance, should be made the precedent for similar appeals to us in similar circumstances. I hope, as has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the investor in this country who puts his money into a dominion or colonial security will be prepared to take the proper share of risk without looking to any possibility in the future of using the credit and the guarantees of this country for the liability which he undertakes.
I support the Second Reading of the Bill because I believe it is essential to save this Dominion, but I hope that it will be a definite part of the new régime in Newfoundland to reconstruct not merely the finances of the colony, but the whole of its economic structure. It has been a field of ruin and disaster through bad management under malign political influence. It will be the task of the commissioners under, we hope, a wise and competent Governor, to restore the country to a condition of sane and wholesome economic and social life. We are to-night doing an act of great Imperial significance. We are showing our desire to save one of our own Dominions from economic destruction. We are not doing it merely to relieve the people in Newfoundland, but because we believe it is an act of duty to one of the sister nations within our Commonwealth. It is a unique instance in our dominion and colonial legislation, but I hope that it will not be made a precedent.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) in almost everything that he has said. The main point of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) was, as I under-
stood it, to point out the complete failure of public enterprise in Newfoundland. I should like him to observe, however, that the Report categorically points to the evil of unregulated enterprise. I think that possibly both hold good. The Under-Secretary and the Members of the Opposition may particularly like certain parts of the Report, whereas I and my friends may tend to throw our main weight on another aspect of it. It is obvious from a careful study of the Report that private enterprise in Newfoundland, particularly as applied to the fishing industry, was successful for many years, but then unfortunately, owing to the absence of any form of regulation or control from the Government and many other causes, it fell into almost complete decay. I think that the advantages of private enterprise may usefully be combined with a certain amount of help and encouragement and even, if necessary, control by the Government, but I may point out to hon. Members opposite one salient fact in the Report. It is that a great deal of the troubles of Newfoundland are due particularly to the fact that the people of the country have been led to look upon the Government as a milch cow and to expect the Government to look after them in any circumstances.
I believe that we may in this country take a very useful example from that. As various hon. Members opposite have had the grace to point out, the two parties in Newfoundland were Conservative and Liberal, but unfortunately the basic policy underlying both parties, whichever was in power, was to encourage the people to think that they could rely upon the Government. Indeed, the whole political system was wrong from top to bottom. Not only were they encouraged to believe that the Government would do everything for them, but Members of Parliament themselves were the channels through which public funds were distributed. I should not care, and I do not think any Members of this House would care, to distribute the largesse which a grateful Government were prepared to shower upon the country. That is what in fact happened in Newfoundland, and if that system obtained on a small scale with the most melancholy results, what would happen if an absolutely unregulated dole were showered upon the people owing to the advent of a Socialist Government? I do not, however, wish to make an
attacking speech at this juncture, because I believe that this is a situation which should put us above the purely party point of view.
There is no doubt that for many years there was not only a deplorable political system in Newfoundland, but a very odd factor which entered into the whole life of the island which it is very difficult to assess. That was optimism. For 12 years the Government of Newfoundland had not balanced their Budget. The public debt grew since 1920 by 100 per cent., and the reason was not far to seek. The Government were always able to borrow by pointing to their vast potential resources. Undoubtedly their hidden resources and their frozen assets are very great. They have perhaps the biggest iron ore deposits in the British Empire and there are considerable forests which, if properly exploited, might bring in a considerable revenue. The country mainly depends, as it always will, on fish, but, apart from the fishing industry, most of the island's assets, including Labrador, were frozen. Curiously enough, owing to the optimism of the Governments and investors in Newfoundland, these frozen assets were looked upon as tangible and realisable assets, which, in fact, they were not. If the whole world were extremely prosperous, and the demand for iron ore, wood and fish were increasing constantly, those frozen assets would be of some value, but they are at present, and as far as we can see will remain for some years, in a frozen condition. The Government in this country found themselves faced with the position that the Dominion of Newfoundland owned great assets which it could not dispose of, although in the long run they may come out all right—we hope they will—but was, from the immediate standpoint, in a totally bankrupt condition.
Two very interesting speeches in particular have been delivered to-night. The first was by the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), who, I regret to observe, is not in the House at the moment, who has had great experience in Colonial administration. He brought various criticisms to bear on the Bill and on the Government's policy, and one criticism in particular is worth examination. He felt that during the period of the administration which we are
now setting up there should be in Newfoundland some kind of Legislative Council, or some advice given to the commissioners on a democratic basis. I am very doubtful whether that proposal would be advisable. I believe, first, that the commissioners will be able to consult the inhabitants and to get advice from them, and, secondly, I should very much dislike any form of legislative council which would in the least hamper the activities of those six commissioners. Another suggestion which my hon. and gallant Friend put up, which was echoed by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), was that there should be two Members of the Newfoundland Legislature in this House. Apart from the dislike we all have of interfering with the existing Constitution and the existing numbers of the House of Commons, there is one grave objection to that proposal. Suppose we agree to the entry of two Members from Newfoundland into this House. They would be elected, presumably, by a democratic suffrage similar to that which Newfoundland has adopted for its lower Chamber to-day. I can foresee that those six commissioners are going to have an extremely difficult time, and consequently will be liable to raise a good deal of opposition against themselves. I have talked to Newfoundlanders, who say that it is very tasy to sway, as previous Governments have swayed, the population of Newfoundland, and therefore if we had two Members in the House of Commons we should be most likely to get two Members who were in opposition to the six commissioners out in Newfoundland trying, against considerable odds, to carry on the Government of the country. I think that is a very sound argument against such a suggestion. When I come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) I must confess to a feeling somewhat akin to horror that he should advocate, as I understood it, complete default. Surely that is a very dangerous suggestion from a Member representing the financial centre of the Empire. He said, quite rightly, that the holders of Newfoundland and of other Dominion bonds get a bigger yield on them because they realise, or should have realised, that they are more dangerous and that they are entitled to
a bigger yield to compensate for the danger; but when he goes further and advocates, in effect, that because there was danger 'and that danger arrived therefore Newfoundland would have been perfectly right to default, and we should have been perfectly right in allowing her to do so, I am afraid I must join issue strongly with the hon. Member. And not only on account of the bondholders—by no means—because they, I admit, should look after themselves. I also admit that it is 'an extremely dangerous precedent that we should be taking over the administration and the responsibility for the debts of Newfoundland. It is a most dangerous precedent, and I hope my hon. Friend opposite, who is going to wind up, will make it very clear that this must not be taken as a precedent for other bondholders to count upon in the future—that His Majesty's Government will always come in, in the interests of maintaining a security of the British Empire, and get them out of a hole.
I hope His Majesty's Government will make it clear that this case is taken on its merits, and that should there in future be any possible default by a Dominion on its bonds that that case also will be taken on its merits, and that the Government will have regard to the circumstances of the situation at the time and, particularly, the financial condition of this country. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) that perhaps the first thing to do is to put the Civil Service on a sound basis. I also agree with Lord Amulree and his colleagues that it is absolutely necessary to reorganise the fishing industry from top to bottom. Those engaged in that industry have to realise that they are up against hot and difficult competition from Iceland, Denmark and other countries, and that it is only by adopting modern methods of grading, packing and marketing, with, if necessary, Government control, Government help and Government regulation, that they can hope, in the present circumstances, to regain a part of the trade they have lost.
There was one aspect of the Report of the Royal Commission which has been referred to by several hon. Members with which I did not agree—most of the others did agree—and that concerns forest control. The report says, in effect, that the
forests in Newfoundland are not being properly exploited, and that they are a source of very considerable revenue. In that I entirely agree. They go on to say that where forest lands which are held on licence or under lease are not being exploited
the licence or lease, should be cancelled or in cases where land is held in fee simple, that the land should revert to the Crown
and they also recommend an annual tax. We have had various examples of that in the United States, and there were curious results from the position of an annual tax on growing forests. In many-cases which I personally know of it was found that the owners or the lessees of forest property were unable to pay the annual tax, and they had to build sawmills and cut down their trees in order to pay. They found themselves making a terrific loss on their forest property, and also a very heavy loss on the sawn wood from their mills which they had exported. Therefore I am doubtful whether, in the long run, that proposal would be advisable for Newfoundland.
Taking the really broad view we have to remember that Newfoundland at present is going through a terribly difficult time. It is not only the merchants and the bankers who are suffering, but the people themselves. Compare the relief granted by way of transitional payments to those who are out of work in this country, which averages something like £l a week, with the relief of 1.80 dollars a month which is the highest relief paid in Newfoundland. It amounts to only 1s. 8d. a week. It is easy to say that in the summer months the people there can grow their own vegetables, and that they may perhaps get game in the autumn and fish during the summer months, but when we remember that in the winter those unfortunate men are getting only 1s. 8d. a week with which to keep body and soul together we must have very great sympathy with them in their sufferings. I quite see the point of hon. Members of the Labour party that we should not be spending the taxpayers' money out of this country, but they say at the same time that the taxpayers' money should be squandered in this country, used to swell the already enormous cost of the social services. Should they not have a little sympathy with people in Newfoundland who are not
getting £10 a year a head in social services? If we pass this Bill they will be getting only £3 a head, and out of that £3 only that modest measure of relief which is the least which can be given to keep body and soul together, but at the same time we shall be saving the country from ruin and chaos which would be consequent upon a default.
Many hon. Members have cast doubts on the danger of default and of the ruin which would ensue, but I ask them to look once again at the report of the Royal Commission, at page 179, where they will see the consequences very clearly stated, not the consequences to the bondholders but to the people of Newfoundland. I cannot help feeling that if the Labour party had been the Government, they would have done precisely what this Government have done. I ask them very earnestly to realise that some of us on this side of the House believe that they have a real sense of Imperial responsibility, and not to allow that sense of responsibility to be entirely spoiled by the fact that at present they are in Opposition. I believe strongly that we in this country have a Very great mission to fulfil at the present time. I believe that by passing this Bill and taking over the government of Newfoundland, with all the responsibility which that measure entails, we can strike a great blow for the Empire. We can prove that the Empire really means something. I have always felt that a British subject, in whatever part of the world he happens to be, whether he be in Lime-house, or at Launceston in my own county of Cornwall or in Little River, Newfoundland, is just as much worthy of help and consideration. I hope—although I suppose that it is too much to hope—that hon. Members of the Opposition will realise that they can perform a big action to-night by not dividing against the Government, and that they can show that their feeling of responsibility is great. I am convinced that if they take that action it will have most admirable effects, not only in this country but, in their own interests, throughout the Empire.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I want to assure the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) that we are just
as anxious about the people of Newfoundland as are hon. Member in other parts of the House, but we realise that the problem of Newfoundland is not a very easy one to solve. If we adopt the wrong course now, we may find ourselves later on having to retrace our steps and to adopt a different course to attain our object. The report that has been presented to the House has helped every Member very much in understanding the conditions which exist in that distant country.
I had the good fortune of being in Newfoundland over 30 years ago for a few days, and I have never forgotten the impression that that visit conveyed to my younger mind. I left home for the first time, and reached that new country on a Sunday afternoon in the month of October, and my first observation was that there was snow on the hillsides, and that the oat and barley harvests had not been gathered. An important difference between that country and our own is the uncertainty of agricultural operations in the climate of Newfoundland. Upon making inquiries regarding industry and agriculture, as well as about the fishery industry of that country, I discovered that there were & good many complaints about the way in which the economic life of the island was carried on, and strong were the complaints against the political administration. One would find difficulty in going to any country without meeting critics of its Government, but I found no friend of the Newfoundland Government, although we were only two days in the port while on our way to the Mainland. Allegations of corruption and graft were very freely made wherever we went, upon that visit 30 years ago.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the value of this Report, and indulged in a hurried survey, geographical, industrial and political, as one must do, before one can decide the merits of the Bill and of the Amendment which has been submitted to the House. We are not unmindful of the immense difficulties. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) said that the Report was a brilliant diagnosis of the condition of Newfoundland, but it presents a sombre picture of the conditions there. The diagnosis and the picture of the conditions may be vivid and clear enough, but we are not satisfied, even from the information contained in
the Report, that the remedy proposed is the right one. There is no modern parallel to the issue of such a Report. The condition under which the great majority of the Newfoundland population exist is described with great frankness. It is a condition which is not equalled by an English-speaking people anywhere in the world. Greater poverty, hardship and sacrifices have been called for from these people than have been required from any English-speaking people, and we feel very strongly that much should be done in the examination and the assessment of the real responsibility for the distress in the island.
When we discuss this problem, it is no use denying or omitting to stress the evils of past Administrations. At the commencement of the book, the relations between politicians and people are explained almost brutally, to the discredit of the politicians, and to the reproach of the people who suffered the politicians so long. The condition of the Newfoundland Houses of Parliament is described, and I will try to draw a parallel here. We find that there is a qualification for membership of the Assembly which is new to us, and which sounds strange to us in these days. The qualification is a property or income qualification. The island is governed by propertied people in the interests of property. The right hon. Gentleman said something about party changes. That is referred to in the Report, which describes the qualification of members and the franchise. The Report says that "there are two main political parties, Liberals and Conservatives. The latter now hold office." There has been a see-saw in Newfoundland, to my knowledge. The Liberals and the Conservatives have rung the changes alternatively in short periods, and they have had a monopoly of the Administration. There is no other party, and there has never been a substantial prospect of any other party in the island.
One hundred years of Liberal and Tory rule are responsible for the condition of the island and they have brought about the plight which is described so very tragically in the Report. The Report says, on page 81:
The evidence tendered to us from all sides and from responsible persons in all walks of life leaves no doubt that for a number of years there has been a continuing process of greed, graft and corruption which
has left few classes of the community untouched by its insidious influences.
That is not due to Bolshevism or to trade unionism. Hon. Members on the other side, who attribute the decline of industry to Bolshevism, trade unionism or high wages will see that none of those have played a part in the condition in Newfoundland. The workpeople of Newfoundland have been ground too low to offer any effective protest against the exploitation, which has lasted for generations. This indictment which is made against the politicians of Newfoundland is not made against Labour politicians, it is not made against Socialists; it is made against the kinds of politicians that share the Front Government Bench between them—Liberal and Conservative politicians. The people would have scorned to listen to any Communist or Socialist speaker on the Island; they are too patriotic, too religious, too tied to the old political machine to have any other opinion on these matters. The responsibility must be accepted by the old traditional parties here in this country, with their prototypes over in Newfoundland and in other parts of the Empire.
There is an old saying that you cannot indict a nation, and you really cannot indict this community, which, although not a nation, is an old-established community, and a more homogeneous community than can be found perhaps in any other part of the Empire. They belong to one stock—an English stock in the main, with a little Scotch and a little sprinkling of Welsh. They are an entirely English-speaking people, people of one race, the great majority of them born on the Island, the sons and daughters of parents born in the Island; their families have been there generation after generation. As to religion, there are about equal numbers of Protestants, Catholics and Nonconformists. They are one race, and have Newfoundland traditions behind them, but, unfortunately, those traditions are not very strong.
These people, scattered about, as I have seen them, in little villages in the bays and nooks of that inhospitable rock-bound coast, are divided up into small communities; and so ground down have they been by poverty, so divided have they been into these small communities, that they have never yet been able to develop a common consciousness or any sense of
national or community pride. We do not indict these people, but nevertheless we in this House are by this Measure voicing our protest against them and their political system and their political machine. Indeed, we hurl against them very strong condemnation and impose penalties upon them—because what is proposed in this Bill is a penalty, viewed from the standpoint of the people of Newfoundland, and these reproaches are the excuse for the penalty which we impose upon them. When we send our reproaches over to Newfoundland, the people over there will blush for the infamies of their politicians and for their own weaknesses. May we not listen carefully for the echoes of those reproaches as they come back to us, and may we not find that the same reproaches will in a lesser degree apply against ourselves and against the political system of this country? This should serve as a warning not only to Newfoundland but also to the United Kingdom and all other parts of the Empire.
An hon. Member has said that we do not share the Imperial sentiments held by him and others. I spent a part of my working life in Canada, and I must confess that I was attracted by that great country. There were features in Canadian life that attracted me very much, and I came to the conclusion, even 30 years ago, that there were very great possibilities in Canada. But I was only too conscious of the grave political defects of the country at that time, and they have not yet been fully repaired. May we not take this as a warning, not only to Newfoundland but to every other Dominion and to ourselves at home, of the certain ruin that follows corruption and insincerity and lack of honesty in politics? The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) chose to make a party point in referring to us. He said he was quite sure that we had not read the report. But he does not do us full justice. We have read the report, and have tried to understand it. It is exceedingly interesting, and I wish that everyone in the country would read it as a lesson in politics. I would like also to see all the people of Newfoundland read it.
We find that, owing to a bad political system, wrong principles in industry, and faulty administration in the economic life of that country, the land has been
very largely alienated. For example, take the 5,000 acres of land that were given for each mile of railway completed by railway contractors. That went on in repeated contracts, the Clause being actually duplicated in one or two cases, until we find that well over 4,000,000 acres of land have been alienated from the Government of Newfoundland and have passed into the control of railway and other contractors. Greed and graft and corruption were responsible for that. The politicians had to be bought with money in order to transfer the land to the ownership of these private people and private companies. It will be found, also, that, of the 42,000 square miles which is the total area of the Island, no less than 25,000 square miles is covered with forest—a very valuable natural resource. There are geographical and trade considerations which determine the value of standing timber, but if not to-day, or tomorrow, at some time those 25,000 square miles of forest will be a very valuable asset in Newfoundland. We find, however, that, of the 25,000 square miles of timber, 15,000 square miles are either owned by or leased or let to private individuals and concessionaires. That is most scandalous; there is no parallel for it in any part of the world favoured by civilised government.
While this has gone on, the people of Newfoundland are intensely poor. That is the information contained in this report; that is the description of everyone who knows. Winter will set in in a week or two all over the Island, and I can well imagine it, because I spent two winters in those latitudes, and know the hardships of winter life when there are not ample supplies of food and fuel, when communications are bad, when people are shut up in their shacks for four or five months without any communication with the outside world. It is a very tragic plight in which these people will find themselves this winter. The people are poor, and the land is lying idle. One hon. Member questioned the possibility of growing food in Newfoundland. It is not an ideal agricultural country, but it does compare, I should say, with Norway or Sweden from a climatic point of view, and even from the point of view of soil. There is no reason why this sparse population should not be getting a very good living, but there has been bad management—no encouragement for the producer
but discouragement and obstacles placed in his way from the standpoint of efficiency.
Then the people are poor. There is an almost incredible scarcity of money. There are people who are now old who have not handled as much money in a lifetime as a well-paid British workman handles in one year. Owing to the credit system, people go from year to year without touching any money. The turnover of wages is exceedingly small. Scarcity of money has added to the disintegrating influence of money itself in all societies. Here, because of the exceptional difficulty of finding money, money has been more a temptation to politicians and others than in countries where money is more plentiful. It has become a special object of attraction and has tempted people to devious ways of obtaining it because of the great poverty of the general mass of the people. The low volume of money in circulation and the lack of paid employment is one of the outstanding features in this book. The very small purchasing power is one of the features of life in that country.
This is a lesson to us. The use of money has become subject to the control of what is now nothing more nor less than a money machine. We have evidence of it in the House to-day. Money is not being used to serve the interests of the people in Newfoundland. It is not available for the purposes of the ordinary people. Money in Great Britain is not being put to the use and service of the people here. This indispensable agent of modern life is under the control of people who play with it as if they played a game for their own advantage, and Newfoundland is suffering because she has no resources in money. There is against this small population of 280,000 a capital debt of roughly £20,000,000. Those who are accustomed to the large figures with which we are familiar do not appreciate that £20,000,000 is an enormous burden on the people of Newfoundland. It is roughly £80 per head of the population, some half the amount per head that is represented by our National Debt here. But £80 is an infinitely larger burden for the people of Newfoundland than £160 for the people of this country.
It is contemplated that this capital debt is to be met by the people of Newfoundland. It is proposed at some time to
make it fully chargeable upon them. That is an enormous burden with which to weight future generations of this small community living in the conditions in which they find themselves. This enormous debt cannot be paid, and the question has been asked how this community can be saved from default. There may be delay, there may be a small measure of alleviation, but there is no guarantee that there is to be any permanent reduction in this huge burden which has been piled upon the people by the graft of their politicians and those who are dealing with them. Let it not be imagined that all the corruption is in Newfoundland. Those who have made bargains with them knew the conditions of the Newfoundland finances and Newfoundland politics, and there is room to suspect that people who had business deals with Newfoundland were themselves taking advantage of the political impurity of the island in order to do financial business with the Government of that country.
The people of Newfoundland living in these small villages cannot pay this debt within any measurable period of time, and, if they are ever to come into a position to meet the charge, something much more radical than is contained in this Bill must take place. I should expect the right hon. Gentleman to agree with us in our Amendment. We do not believe that this debt can be met by letting British taxpayers pay instead of Newfoundland taxpayers. We are now putting our own people through a course of sacrifice which is very heavy to bear. We are having controversy day after day upon the measure of sacrifice which our own people can tolerate, and it is not fair to impose additional burdens which are only transferred to the poorer classes in this country in order, nominally to assist the poor people of Newfoundland, but in reality to relieve the bondholders who have made the mistake of investing their money in Newfoundland with the knowledge that they had of conditions in that area. There are passages in the report which I should like to read, because they throw more light upon the view that we take of the Bill. There is a chapter dealing with the political and constitutional aspect of the proposals submitted to the Commission. The report says:
From the political and constitutional point of view, these proposals fall into
three categories, those which postulate a continuance of the present system of government, with such modifications as will be necessary to ensure the permanence of the form of control over expenditure which is now in force, those which postulate a continuance of the present system of government, with such alterations as might conduce to more efficient administration without necessitating a modification of the existing constitution, and those which are based on the assumption that only by a radical change of system for a period of years can the Island be restored in health.
Is the radical change in system confined to a change in the method of political control, or does it take us further, to the radical change which we demand in our Amendment, a change in the organisation of the economic life of the people of the Island? The executive action is described on page 199, and there we find that the three commissioners drawn from Newfoundland and the three drawn from Great Britain are to work together as a commission presided over by the Governor-General. The commission will be composed of six members, exclusive of the Governor, three of whom will be drawn from Newfoundland and three from the United Kingdom. The Government Departments in the Island will be divided into six groups. Each group will be placed in the charge of a member of the Commission of Government, who will be responsible for the efficient working of the Departments in the group, and the commission will be collectively responsible for the several Departments. It is very difficult to see how the commission is to work. Is a Newfoundland commissioner who may himself be a member of the present Newfoundland Government, and who may have been a Minister in repeated and consecutive Newfoundland Administrations, to be given charge of a Department on his own responsibility and to be responsible to the commission as a whole and to the chairman who is at the head? Are these people to be paid, and upon what scale are they to be paid? Are they liable to dismissal? Are they answerable to anybody except the chairman of the commission and the Dominions Secretary? Questions have already been asked as to how those people are to carry the confidence, as they must, of the people of Newfoundland. The confidence of the people must be obtained even for this kind of Measure. While they will not find it
necessary to elect Members of Parliament, they will have to live day by day under an Administration of which they must approve or disapprove. What opportunities are to be given for contact between the heads of these commissions and the people whose affairs will be administered by them?
We on this side have offered an Amendment. We now come to this. Ignoring for the time being all the machinery, we question very seriously the efficacy of the system proposed and the right of this country to withdraw the right of self-government of a small community, neglected and despised as they are at present. Why should we be asked to make good the loss of these Bondholders? Why do we not face up to the possibilities of default here and now when the country is devastated with all the poverty and hardships endured by the people? There is no surplus from which the bondholders may be paid. If that is the prospect for this island for some time, and if, as we believe, the prospect of improvement must be slow and must be one of constructive building, why should we not declare any default at the present time? By what right do bondholders always stand to win and never stand to lose? If you invest in coal mines in this country you may lose money, as many investors have lost their money. If you invest in steel or in railways you stand a chance of losing. Why should this class be subjected to special Government protection, and why should we and the poor people of Newfoundland be pledged bodily, physically, socially to guarantee the claims of the bondholders? Why should we in this country be pledged to guarantee the claims of a small section of people who ought to stand the ordinary risk, which society has to undergo, such as world depression and changes in world prices? Why should they be relieved from the consequences? President Roosevelt, speaking with satisfac-faction of the partial success of his measures, said:
We are now getting money to go where money is needed.
That is a very pithy phrase and a very important economic utterance. This is not the way to make money go where it is needed. This money is not going to the poor people in Newfoundland; there is not a penny piece which will go to the poor people. No grant is to be made
to them. It is possible that there may be some alleviation because of the assistance given to those people now. We on this side of the House believe that in Newfoundland, as elsewhere, prosperity can only come to the people by the right use of capital and labour in a really constructive scheme for opening up profitable industries in the country. The industry of fishing in Newfoundland must for a considerable time remain one of the main industries, if not the chief industry. Forestry will come later. Mining may be developed in the course of time. But we cannot wait. It should not go forth from this House and as an Act of this Parliament, that the people of Newfoundland should be handed over as living pledges to those people who have invested money in their country and who stand out for their pound of flesh from the inhabitants of this poverty-stricken island.

8.53 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have listened to every word which has been spoken in the two Debates we have had upon this subject, and I think that the series of interesting speeches which have been delivered is the best tribute that could have been paid to the Report of the Royal Commission. Those speeches show that the Report has been studied widely and carefully, and I dare say that some hon. Members have had the same experience that I have had with regard to it. I went one day on a three-hour train journey, and I took with me this forbidding looking Blue Book and also a very attractive novel. I decided that I would read this report for about half-an-hour and then devote myself to the other literature which I had brought. But at the end of three hours I found myself still immersed in this Report, which certainly has some of the qualities of those volumes about which the reviewer writes, "I could not lay down this book until I had got to the last page."
I was asked some questions by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). He asked, "How long is it since the Dominions Office knew of the financial position of Newfoundland?" and "Did the Dominions Office warn investors in this country that they had that knowledge?" In the first place, no loan has been raised in this country since 1923,
but, quite apart from that, Newfoundland is a Dominion, a self-governing part of the Empire, and one of the conditions of the relations between this country and the Dominions is that there shall be no interference from Downing Street with domestic affairs concerning a self-governing country. Therefore, it was no business of ours to interfere in any way in the financial affairs of Newfoundland. In further answer to the question, I would say that the first official intimation that we received as to the financial situation in the Dominion was some time early in 1931, when the then Prime Minister asked whether we could let his Government have a financial adviser, and the Dominions Office, with the Treasury, took immediate action. We sent out straight away a financial adviser, and we did our best to save the situation, while preserving self-government in the Dominion, and it is only because, even after that swift action as soon as we were entitled to come in, of the failure of that partial action, that this legislation is brought before the House to-day.
There is another question to which I should like to refer straight away. A number of hon. Members to-day, as the other day, have expressed their misgivings as to whether this is not a very bad precedent and whether it does not mean that if Australia, or South Africa, or Canada got into similar difficulties we should be bound to come to the rescue of the bondholders, or whoever we are rescuing in this case, in the same way. The only comment that I need make on that argument is to remind hon. Members that an integral part of this whole, comprehensive scheme is that self-government, at any rate for the time being, should come to an end in Newfoundland, and that if we are to take over the responsibility for finance we must also take over the responsibility for the entire government of that Dominion. In the light of these considerations, I cannot see that this is likely to be appealed to as a precedent in the case of financial difficulty in Australia, South Africa or Canada.
So far as Newfoundland itself is concerned, there is a certain amount of common ground between hon. Members opposite and hon. Members on this side of the House. I do not think that anyone has sought to dispute the terrible state of affairs in Newfoundland described in the pages of the Report. The people of
the country are, for the most part, wretchedly poor, the economic position of the country is at this moment precarious, and, in fact, an exceedingly dangerous state of affairs has been brought to a head by the inability of the Newfoundland Government to meet the services of the public debt out of Newfoundland's resources. These desperate conditions are features of the problem on which we are all agreed, and those are the facts of the situation with which we are dealing, the undisputed facts. If that desperate state of affairs is true, there are two possible alternative policies between which the Government had to choose. The first was simply to allow things to slide and to allow the Newfoundland Government to default.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Hear, hear.

Mr. MacDONALD: The tenor of the speeches on the other side of the House would indicate that hon. Members opposite would have adopted that course. Hon. Members have devoted the greater part of their time to criticism of our policy, without offering any constructive alternative. At the end of the Debate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), whose very fair-minded speeches are always appreciated in this House, was bold enough to declare, without any qualification, for default by the Newfoundland Government.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Yes.

Mr. MacDONALD: That is an honest statement of policy. The hon. Member has been equally honest in stating his reason for opposing our policy. He has said that he does not like the policy, and hon. Members have agreed with him, because the first object of the policy is to save the bondholders—the bankers, the moneylenders, the bondholders about whom his Leader spoke earlier in the afternoon. I do not flatter myself that anything I can say is going to disabuse him of that idea. If an angel from heaven came to speak from this Box and said that this Government was not primarily concerned in helping the bondholders, hon. Members opposite would stick to their opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes. All I can say is that their accusation simply is not true. If the bondholders were the only people interested in our saving Newfoundland
from default at this moment, the Government would not be going into the intricate and comprehensive policy which is contemplated at the present time. The fact is, as is written on every page of the report, that there are other people concerned, other people interested in our avoiding default by Newfoundland besides the bondholders, and those people are the whole population of Newfoundland. The poor fishermen, the poor agriculturists and the small number of industrial workers would all have heaped upon them even worse distress than they are experiencing to-day if we were to stand by and allow things to slide and allow Newfoundland to default.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower has elaborated a long policy, with a great deal of which we on this side agree, but it is going to take time to bring its fruits, and in the meantime if we allowed Newfoundland to default the foundations on which we hope to build would have been swept from under our feet. The Royal Commission's Report indicates the processes that would follow upon default. It lays it down that default would shatter the credit of the Island, that that would lead to the impairment of confidence, and that that in turn would lead to the limitation of the trade of an Island which depends very largely on imports for giving the people the necessities of life. That reduction of trade would result in more unemployment and in a general lowering of the standard of life of the people. It is these facts with which the Government are primarily concerned. The report indicates how serious the position is already. It indicates that a large proportion of the population even now are depending upon public relief, and one realises that that proportion would be enormously increased if the disaster of default were allowed to take place.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: The report shows that there is a margin of exportable products. Her exports have been 25 per cent. more than her imports. Those exportable products are there, and exchanges could be made without the use of money.

Mr. MacDONALD: That might help the situation for a short time but very swiftly the full effects of default would come upon the heads of the people of the country and would throw an enorm-
ously increased number of the population on to public relief. One is tempted to think that that is the real reason why hon. Members opposite regard that prospect with equanimity, because one of the great differences between them and us on this side is that they believe in work or maintenance, with the emphasis on maintenance, while we believe in work or maintenance, with the emphasis on work. If it is the poor people of the Island of Newfoundland in which hon. Members opposite and hon. Members below the Gangway opposite are interested, then that is exactly the same interest that we have, and it is in their interest that we are trying to avoid default. We are, in fact, avoiding default and so saving them from greater insecurity in their employment and from a lowering of their standard of life. For these reasons we reject the first alternative of default.
There is only one other alternative to avoiding default, and that is to devise means to enable the Government of Newfoundland to meet the services of the public debt. In discussing the different ways of doing that I would emphasise this point, that the Royal Commission did not consider one proposal only and then adopt it and make it their recommendation. They examined a whole series of different possible ways of avoiding default, and it was only after examining every single alternative proposal put before them and turning them down on their merits that they came, rather reluctantly in the end, to make the radical and drastic recommendations that they did. For instance, the question of Labrador being sold to Canada was considered. Hon. Members opposite have suggested that the problem should be met in this way, and the Liberal spokesman has also suggested it as a more convenient way of meeting the problem. The suggestion was fully examined, and the Commission discovered that it was not only a case of forcing Newfoundland against her will to sell Labrador, but it was also a case of forcing Canada against her will to buy Labrador. Therefore, it is not a suggestion which we believe is very helpful; unless the suggestion is that the Labour party should send an international air force across the Atlantic to bomb both Canada and Newfoundland into submission.
The Commission examined a great variety of possible constructive alternatives. It examined first every one that was placed before it to meet the situation and avoid default without recourse to the British Government and British taxpayer. It examined the suggestion that Newfoundland should join in a union with Canada, and after the most sympathetic consideration they found that there were economic and political circumstances which made it absolutely impossible as a method of meeting the situation. Having turned down all possible methods of meeting the case without recourse to the British Government and taxpayer, the Commission went on to examine the different ways in which this country might save the situation. They examined, first, ways of avoiding default which would not involve a sacrifice of self-government on the part of Newfoundland. Again, after the most sympathetic consideration of all these less drastic alternatives they were turned down by the Commission on their merits, and they came finally to the distinct conclusion that this way alone was possible in order to avoid default and save a disastrous situation which would be most unhappy not only for the people of Newfoundland but for the people of the Empire as a whole.
Hon. Members who have studied the Report, and are not prejudiced by the notion that everybody but themselves is anxious to save the bondholders alone, will come to the conclusion, perhaps reluctantly, but nevertheless to the definite conclusion that of all the alternatives this is the only possible one which adequately meets a serious situation. Of course, there are great difficulties. The problem bristles with difficulties, but the British Empire has been built up to its present eminence by our ability to overcome difficulties and by what is perhaps our peculiar genius for solving original political problems. It has been said that it is extremely serious to take self-government away from Newfoundland, and my hon. Friend even went so far as to question our right to do it at all. We have no right to do it against the wishes of the people of Newfoundland, but in this case we are doing it at their request. At any rate, this must be admitted, that the Government of Newfoundland agreed that the Commis-
sion should be appointed, and it was appointed with its own representative sitting as a full member of the Commission with the duty of looking primarily after the interests of Newfoundland. The representative of the Government of Newfoundland signed the Report with all its recommendations, and then the Government itself agreed to the Report and, finally, the Parliament of Newfoundland, without a dissentient voice or vote, asked His Majesty to see that the findings of the Commission were implemented. Therefore, we are starting out on this policy at the request and with the approval of the people of Newfoundland.
Of course, there are dangers ahead. An impressive speech was made the other day by the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay) which has been echoed a good deal in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), and also by other hon. Members. They say "it is all very well, you may have the agreement of the Newfoundland people to-day, but wait and see what happens after two or three years. Wait until the urgency of the dangers of the present time are somewhat forgotten, until you start to tread on the toes of some vested interests"—which we intend to do—"wait until political agitators have started to get to work again, and you will find that this new form of government is exceedingly unpopular and that public opinion in the island will be aroused against it." That, I think, is the most powerful argument that can be levelled against these proposals. It is a most important consideration which hon. Members should have in their minds in considering this policy.
Let me make one or two comments on that argument. In the first place, I do not believe that the people of Newfoundland will quickly forget their experience of the last 10 years. In the second place, the argument itself impresses upon us the fact that this is not only an economic problem but a political problem as well, and, therefore, we have to be exceedingly careful in the choice of the six commissioners who are to be appointed. In the case of the three commissioners from the United Kingdom we must not only see that the persons are of great administra-
tive ability, that is essential for the work of reconstruction that is contemplated, but also that they are also representatives with political experience in handling political problems.
The hon. Member for Altrincham said it was essential that the commissioners should keep in touch with public opinion in the island. Certainly it will be a part of the duty of the commissioners to make speeches. They are not going to be civil servants bound down by all the rules of the Civil Service. It is contemplated that they shall have contacts with the people of the island, and that they shall take opportunities not only for going around and speaking themselves to the people, and explaining to the people what they are doing and what their policy is achieving, but that they shall also take opportunities of meeting the people and letting the people talk to them, hearing the reaction amongst the population of the island of the policy which this Government by commission are putting into force. But quite apart from the fact that there should be a certain political ability represented in our own three commissioners, of course the other three commissioners who are to be appointed by the people of Newfoundland will naturally be especially valuable in this work of keeping in touch with local opinion and explaining to local opinion exactly what the Government are trying to do and what they are achieving.
The hon. Member for Altrincham said there was one Department which would be more important than any other, and that was the Department under which the greater part of the economic development is to be carired out. He said he wondered whether that Department was to be under the control of one of the United Kingdom Commissioners or of one of the Newfoundland Commissioners. The answer is that one of the United Kingdom Commissioners will preside over the work of that Department. The hon. Member went on to question the wisdom of the Royal Commission in suggesting that the development of the fisheries should be carried out under a Government Department. He said that in his view it would be wiser and more profitable to hand the work of the fishery development to a chartered company, and he asked whether the Government were committed to the Commission's recom-
mendation, or whether we would not consider the possibility of allowing a chartered company to go into the Island and take on that work. The Government could not contemplate that latter suggestion. The fisheries in Newfoundland touch the lives of the people of the country at every point, and I believe it would be intolerable to allow a chartered company to have such power in the Island—a chartered company making its own laws and regulations. The hon. Gentleman said that if the Government took over that job it would sooner or later be very unpopular with the people of the Island. I am certain that the people would be far more prepared to tolerate the Government doing that work than a great chartered company, making its own laws and regulations, which would so profoundly touch the lives of the people at practically every moment of the day.
I do not want to detain the House too long as there is other important business to come on; but I would like to finish on this note: It has been urged that the policy of the Government should aim not merely at overcoming the immediate financial difficulty and finding a means of avoiding default by Newfoundland on this occasion, but that the Government should make its policy much more constructive, that it should have as its chief aim the economic and political development of an Island which has considerable national wealth, and of a people who have many fine qualities. That feeling for a constructive development policy has been the prevailing note of the speeches in this House, and is indeed the prevailing note of the Commission's Report. That policy the Government accept. The Government enter upon this task in that spirit, and in fact it would not be worth while taking on this responsibility and putting burdens on the British taxpayer unless we intended to go ahead as swiftly as possible with a policy of development and reconstruction.
My hon. Friends opposite in their Amendment have suggested that we should start that policy straightaway, that it should precede the other matter of avoiding default. We intend to start it straightaway; but as a matter of fact it can develop only comparatively slowly. Hon. Members have referred to the truck
system and have asked why should the people of Newfoundland continue to be exploited by that system. The Government would very much like to see that system go. It is a system which we have not tolerated in this country for the last century; we abolished it in this country 100 years ago. But the Royal Commission themselves say that this habit, the truck system, is
now so deeply ingrained both among the merchants and the fishermen that an alteration can only be effected gradually.
It is in order that that alteration can be effected at all that we are seeking to preserve the safe foundations upon which our constructive policy must be built. We believe in that policy, and the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the improvement of the catching and selling of fish, with regard to agricultural development, with regard to trying to promote the sale of Newfoundland iron ore, with regard to the raising of fur-bearing animals, and so on. The report will be very carefully considered by the new Government, and the first purpose of the new Government will be to push ahead with the policy of development in the interest of the whole population of the Island. The development and construction, of course, must not be economic only. It has to be political as well.
An hon. Member who spoke from the Labour benches last time said quite truly that it would be a fruitless sort of policy if our idea was that as soon as we had got the Island back on to its feet again we should hand it back to the old method of political Government which has brought the Island to the verge of disaster once before. The policy of the new Government will be a policy of political training, political education and political development, as well as economic development. It should be possible, for instance, to develop municipal government. The report of the Commission says that only in the capital is there any municipal government to-day, and it suggests, that the expansion of municipal government in some of the larger outposts is very desirable. That may help in the political training which is necessary.
The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) spoke about the Civil Service. It is our intention that long overdue reforms in the Civil Service shall be initiated under the new Government. It
is impossible now to answer specific questions and to say that we will do this and that with regard to the Civil Service, but our minds will be kept open to any suggestion that we should lend experts in order to help them to put the Civil Service on a sound basis. We shall be open to consider any suggestions which are made to us by the new Government when they have had time to look around and survey the field.
The Government's policy is a policy which bristles with difficulties. It is not going to be a policy which is easily run or easy to achieve success by, but at any rate it is a policy which should com-

mand the good will of every Member of this House, and it is a policy which the Governor and the commissioners and the whole of the people of Newfoundland should be determined to work successfully. So far as this House is concerned—this House on which so many responsibilities already lie—in asking hon. Members to give this Bill a Second Reading I would only remind them that the great imperial reputation of this country will not suffer through her coming generously to the aid of the oldest British Colony.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 42.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Commander Southby.]

Mr. MAXTON: On that Question, I wish to raise a point—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must remind the hon. Member that the Question, that a Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, must be decided without Amendment or debate.

Mr. MAXTON: I wish to raise a point of Order, and not to move an Amendment or to create debate. I wish to ask whether this Bill is not of the character which is defined in the Standing Orders as a Hybrid Bill; whether both public and private interests are not concerned in it; and, if it is Hybrid Bill, is not the correct procedure now that it should be sent to a Select Committee? I wish to have a Ruling on that point.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is too late in raising that point.
It should have been raised when the Bill was introduced and before the Second Reading.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday next.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1,—(Payment of compensation to producers under marketing schemes.)

9.37 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out the word "a" and to insert instead thereof the words "the bacon."
I very much regret the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), who was to have moved this Amendment, and I am sure that the Committee particularly regret the cause of that absence. When
the Minister moved the Second Reading of the Bill on Thursday last he said it was a Bill in furtherance of the pigs and bacon schemes which were passed by the House on 28th June, and he explained that certain dislocation had occurred during the first contract period under these schemes. He told us that the curers found that they had on hand in the first contract period, instead of a £3,000,000 proposition which was anticipated, a £5,000,000 proposition. He told us that the curers had agreed to pay a price of 12s. per score and that they found they would be unable to make a profit.
Every Member of the Committee will understand that difficulties must arise in the initial stages of such a scheme. It would be foolish to propound the theory that these schemes ought to have been perfect from the commencement and no one desires to do or to say anything which would cripple these schemes at the outset. The point which I wish to raise covers practically all the Amendments which stand on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall and myself. That point, shortly, is that this Bill ought to deal only with the specific purpose explained by the Minister on Thursday last. While appreciating the difficulties which must arise in the initial period of such a scheme, we cannot understand why this Bill has not been drafted so as to deal with the specific problem of pigs and bacon. As the Bill stands—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—it appears that these provisions could be applied to any and every scheme.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): Yes.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: These provisions include provisions as to compensation; they give the power to one board to borrow from another; they give the power to one board to guarantee loans to another, and they give power to private individuals to make loans to a board. We see danger in the extension of these provisions beyond the particular purpose for which the Minister said the Bill was intended. For instance, as regards compensation, there is a great extension of the powers given under the 1931 Act. That Act gave compensation to a producer within a scheme who could prove that he had sustained loss because of the opera-
tion of that scheme. The power given by this Bill is much wider. A producer can be compensated for a loss caused by a scheme of which he is not a member. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on Thursday seemed to be under some misapprehension as to the powers given by the Bill. I think the Minister made it clear that those powers are permissive but even if they are permissive they are none the less dangerous. If these provisions are to be applied to any and every scheme in which they are considered necessary, the result may be to encourage a certain amount of slackness and slackness will lead to an increased price of the commodities concerned. Losses must eventually be handed on to the consumer. If the Bill goes through in its present form it will allow transfers of money from one board to another, and indeed, when I first read the Bill, I could not help thinking that the Minister would be wise to appoint a holding board to hold shares in all these different boards so that at any time he could see at a glance how the finances of the whole arrangement stood. The power of "swopping" finances—to use a Yorkshire word—between one board and another is a grave and dangerous power.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to accept this Amendment, which with consequential Amendments would limit the Bill to the specific purpose outlined by him in his Second Reading speech. If he cannot do so, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee, has he in mind some suspicion that it may be necessary for several boards to use such powers? In that case, will he have to come to the House of Commons on some future occasion to ask for a larger sum than the £625,000 dealt with in the Financial Memorandum. I hope he will give the Committee an assurance that when this Measure is put into operation it will not mean extending the liability of the Treasury in this respect on a future occasion, and I trust that at least we shall have some more explanation of the proposals than we had on Thursday last.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should like to ask the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) whether I am right in assuming that the series of Amendments standing in his name and in that of the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) to Clauses 1, 2, and 4 really form one large, compre-
hensive Amendment. I understand them to do so, but I should like to be confirmed in that opinion.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: That is so, Captain Bourne.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure, in the first place, that we must all regret the absence of the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) and sympathise very deeply with him in the cause of that absence. As to the Amendment actually moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), it is correct, as he supposed, that the terms in which the Clause is drawn enable these provisions to be applied generally, and the series of Amendments which he has brought forward would require that they should only be confined to this one case and this one particular emergency. I hope that he will not find it necessary to press this Amendment, and I hope to be able to explain to him the reasons why we drew the Bill in these general terms. He will remember that in moving the Second Reading of the Bill I specifically pointed out that this Measure dealt with the general problem of modifying a price which had been come to by the consent of two parties. I am of opinion, and we are all in the department of the opinion, that that is a power which might easily require to be exercised and would be of great advantage to both parties to be exercised in the case possibly of other agricultural products. Let me read to the House what I said on Second Reading:
There are many very interesting features in these proposals and it would be of interest to those concerned with agricultural organisation to examine them more closely. The question of the adjustment of a contract price, with which agricultural organisations have struggled repeatedly and which finds its chief example in the contract price in the case of 6ugar-beet is here again tackled and I think not unsuccessfully."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1933; col. 1916, Vol. 283.]
I wanted to point out that we were dealing with the general as well as with the particular problem. I ask the House to consider that in the present state of rapid fluctuation of the market, a long-term contract concluded at a fixed price has, of course, great advantages, but involves both sides in possibly serious disadvantages. A long-term contract between producers and processors may be subject to such fluctuations in the price of the
finished product as to make a bargain driven in good faith shown by subsequent events to be in the interests of neither party to enforce rigidly.
Let me again give the case of sugar-beet, where the contracts for beet used to be on a fixed price basis, so that the grower knew in advance the prices he would get. When sugar prices fell in 1931, one group of factories abandoned the fixed-price contract and offered a co-operative contract. The further fall in the world price of sugar this year has led all the factories to adopt the principle of the co-operative contract, under which the producer receives the minimum price, plus an agreed proportion of the factory's profits. It might easily be that a contract come to in good faith between two parties without the power to enter into any such alteration as that might involve one party in terrific losses before the contract had expired, and, therefore, it is to the advantage of these schemes as a whole that the House should empower the promoters of a scheme when bringing forward a scheme to insert in it words enabling them to pursue such a process if it is to the advantage of both Board A and Board B.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford examined it rather from the point of taking, but there is also the point of giving, and Board A is not likely to give away money to Board B. Rather is it likely to withhold any assistance from Board B unless it is assured that Board B is really on the point of very serious financial catastrophe. [Interruption.] I hope my hon. Friend will not pursue that line too far. It is a difficult subject, and I am anxious to explore it in concert with the Committee and not to engage in what I might call the cut and thrust of debate, because the subject is so novel that what we say here may very easily lay down principles upon which people will operate in the years long after this particular emergency has passed away. I say that Board A is not likely to hand money over to Board B out of light-heartedness or a desire to injure the prospects of its own constituents. Rather, I say, would it be likely to keep its hand on its money too long than to distribute it too lavishly.
I think the safeguards are quite sufficient, and I think the emergency which is proved necessary in this case is not perhaps the only case in which such an emergency will arise. I do not think the making of this power general can possibly
do any harm, and I can conceive of instances where the power might be used. I hope very much, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not find it necessary to press his Amendment and will confine his objection to raising the case, which certainly ought to be raised, that there should be no slackness, but that with that warning he will be able to let the Clause stand as it is.

9.53 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: This does not seem to us a very substantial point, because, as the right hon. Gentleman justly said, a Minister who is being given these large dictatorial powers for the reorganisation of an industry must, of course, be equipped with emergency powers of this sort, so that he can intervene here or there, rapidly, when he finds his scheme falling to the ground because of the lack of finances.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid my hon. and learned Friend is under some slight misapprehension. The Bill gives no power whatever to the Minister to intervene, and, far from making an emergency thing, it seeks to regularise and place into the general statutory provisions a power which otherwise might have been exercised in that dictatorial way which my hon. and learned Friend so very justly fears.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman cannot quite get away with that, because I was quoting his own words when he said that this Bill should be armed to cover other cases, so that when an emergency arises the powers will be there.

Mr. ELLIOT: The powers of the board.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Of the board and also, I presume, the powers he has under Clause 4.

Mr. ELLIOT: When we come to Clause 4 the hon. and learned Member will see that I am bound and tied so that the power does not run for more than 12 months, and none of us expect a revolution to come about so rapidly as that.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Some people seem to think that the right hon. Gentleman has started it already. I gather that some of his own followers think so, from what
one can read. But, seriously, this seems to be a case where there is every reason for leaving these powers, if they are going to be granted at all, to cover all boards and not merely to cover a particular individual case; and we, therefore, shall not support this Amendment.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in paragraph (c) in Part II. of the First Schedule to the principal Act, sub-section (8) of section one of the principal Act shall apply to any amendment of a scheme under this section.
This Amendment will mean little or nothing to hon. Members who have not studied the principal Act and the Bill now before the Committee. The point of the Amendment will not be simple for any other than the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill or any hon. and learned Member who has given some little study to this proposal. The Amendment means that while, as has been stated by the Minister and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), Clause 1 is purely permissive, it does permit any board to amend its scheme after having followed a certain line of procedure, and the scheme can be so amended as to enable the board to pay compensation for any loss effected by the operation of the scheme under the terms of Clause 1. The Amendment is designed to compel the right hon. Gentleman, where a scheme has been amended and all the ordinary procedure has been followed, to come to the House with a draft scheme and to receive affirmative Resolutions in both Houses of Parliament, after which he will make his Order giving effect to the draft scheme which has been assented to by both Houses. I hope that the intention of the Amendment is now made clear, and I want to urge upon the Minister the reason for it.
We desire to retain Parliamentary control over the unlimited sums of money that may be advanced to one or other of the boards free of interest during the first year's operation of these schemes. Clause 1, as was stated last
week, is very important, and there can be no denying the possibility of longdated contracts between pig producers and bacon factors. The same thing may apply to milk producers and the producers of cheese or butter. It may be, for instance, that pig producers, once the potato scheme is in existence, will enter into contracts with potato producers for large quantities of potatoes for feeding purposes. The interlocking of all these agricultural schemes implies, at least in the initial stages, that great care will have to be exercised by all the boards and by the Minister in charge of agriculture. But that is equally true with regard to ordinary Members of Parliament. While we are providing the right hon. Gentleman with emergency powers under which he has at his disposal £625,000 to enable any registered producer operating under any scheme to receive compensation for any sort of loss that may occur, it is the duty of every Member of the House to see that, once a scheme is amended, it ought to come before the House of Commons to receive its approval, since it possibly implies the loan of a large sum of money to tide one or other of two boards over a preliminary period.
The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that he had not exercised any emergency powers. It seems to us that he has, either by whispers or by some other means, guaranteed to bacon producers that the pig producers shall come to their rescue, even though it means a new Parliamentary Measure to extend the scheme of 1931 and 1933. He has already, therefore, without receiving the assent of the House, gone to the assistance of bacon curers. With that we do not disagree. He is likely in future to go to the rescue of producers of butter or cheese or other dairy products. We do not object to that. What we do object to, and I think the right hon. Gentleman as a good Parliamentarian will agree, is merely to pass a Measure which enables any and every marketing board to extend their schemes so as to enable them to borrow hundreds of thousands of rounds from the Government free of interest, without Parliament having any say at all. Because of the vital importance and novelty of Clause 1, we think Parliament is entitled to reserve the power which it now holds to examine every draft scheme
before giving its approval. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the wisdom, first, of securing a quick passage for his Measure to help agriculture help itself, and, secondly, to preserve for Parliament what is undoubtedly its right.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I must compliment my hon. Friend on not only being able to draft this Amendment, but on being able to explain it lucidly to the Committee. It is a difficult subject, and he made it so clear that we were all able to follow it without reference, as it were, to the chapter and verse of the holy writ in the Act of 1931. All that the procedure now to be followed says is that if no one raises any objection and no inquiry is held, it is not necessary to have an affirmative Resolution. If anybody raises any objection an inquiry is automatically held, and then, of course, an affirmative Resolution will be necessary. I think it is unnecessary to say that if, in all the transactions of the board, no objection is raised by anybody, we must bring the matter to the attention of both Houses of Parliament and have two affirmative Resolutions. There is a danger of overloading the attention of Parliament with a multitude of business, and we should avoid bringing things before Parliament unless they are necessary. It is right that Parliament, as the final court of the nation, should decide after the matter has been canvassed outside and a case has arisen, but I do think, in such a case as is here envisaged, it is a sound procedure that where no objection whatever of any kind from any person has been made it should be allowed to go forward without the necessity of having it specifically resolved. I ask my hon. Friend on that understanding, and on the fact that the Act of 1931, his own Act, laid down that uncontested Amendments should not be the subject of affirmative Resolutions, to allow this procedure to remain. I do not think it has done any harm in the past or will do any in the future.

10.6 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not think we can accept the right hon. Gentleman's reply, because the whole gravamen of my hon. Friend's argument was that this Measure is introducing such a very new matter. It is not any argument to say that as the original Act allowed unopposed
amendments to go through without the assent of this House therefore, when we come to this entirely new subject matter, that is, the arrangement of those things for which compensation is to be paid, we should be prepared to abandon any question of looking into that also. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that when schemes are put forward proposing wholesale compensation for members it is not very likely that anyone will oppose them. One does not expect producers under either the one board—or under another board who are contemplating getting like assistance in times of emergency—to object to them. I am not criticising whether the assistance is necessary or not. These amendments will say that the board in such classes of case as may be specified are to pay compensation to their registered producers in respect of certain losses. Clearly, the registered producers will not object, because they are to be provided with payment which they otherwise would not get, and it is not likely that anyone else will object.

Mr. ELLIOT: Surely my hon. and learned Friend is overlooking the fact that the persons from whom the money will come will be likely to object. If they thought it was a disadvantageous transaction they would be the first to object. This is not a procedure by which boards extract money from the Treasury, public funds. This is a way in which boards can make an arrangement one with another, and if there were anything disadvantageous in the transaction a class of persons who would object would be called into being simultaneously with the class who benefit.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman is not really right in that statement. He has told us that this is a permissive Measure. What the scheme can say is that in such-and-such a case a registered producer may receive compensation—may receive compensation; it does not specify how any money shall be raised to pay the compensation. It merely is permissive—in certain classes of case he may receive compensation. Getting the money to compensate him with is something to be done afterwards. The amendment which is contemplated here says:
In such class of oases as may be specified in the scheme.
That is the specification only of the cases in which registered producers may be compensated, that is the point when the proposal comes up to be put into a scheme. For instance, in the egg marketing scheme registered producers may be compensated for loss on sale, for more expensive packing materials or for anything else that might happen to be put in. It is that extension of the powers of the 1931 Act—and the undefined extension as it is in this Clause 1—which makes us feel that the definition ought to be put under the control of Parliament. As it is here it is a perfectly wide and open door:
In such class of cases as may be specified in the scheme.
It is the scheme which is going to define the cases in which compensation is to be given, and we think that, especially in the initial stages, when the first few Measures come up for consideration, that it is very advisable that this House should have the opportunity of criticism, and perhaps even of making valuable suggestions as to how things should be arranged.
I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to think we are trying to stop compensation being given, but we want these schemes, if they are going to be worked, to be as successful as possible. The more successful they are the better. We believe we add to their success and to the confidence of the country and the House in them if this House retains its power and right to discuss, especially in the earlier schemes, the class of cases which may be specified for compensation. We can get rid of the suggestion that boards are likely to pay wholesale compensation to their registered producers when it is not either deserved or desired. We beg the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that these earlier Orders especially—indeed, all the Orders—shall come before the House before they actually become law, as any contentious amendment would naturally do as the law now stands. Schemes for distributing compensation to registered producers—apart altogether from the raising of the money—are not likely to meet with any material opposition, and therefore it is quite possible that they may be unopposed amendments and in the ordinary course will not come before the House, and therefore we want the special provision put in that in these classes of cases they shall come before the House.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for the clarity and courtesy with which he has put his point. It still seems to me, however, that there is a certain danger of overloading Parliament. My hon. Friend now says, "It is clear that no money is passing, it is true that no bargain, overt or covert, has been entered into between two boards, it is true that this power is only enabling, but we see such hazards in these enabling words that we think their operation should be specifically brought before Parliament." There, I am afraid, is the difference of opinion between us. I think that if nobody objects to them—and it is not only the registered producers who can raise an objection, it is. anybody, it is my hon. and learned Friend—

Sir S. CRIPPS: I have not the money.

Mr. ELLIOT: No money is needed for this purpose, only skill and power of argument and dialectical force, and in all those things my hon. and learned Friend is wealthy indeed. My hon. and learned Friend said the people who are likely to benefit are not likely to bring it before the notice of Parliament, and that may be so, but any of the other 40,000,000 inhabitants of this island can bring it under the operation of the Bill and the Minister would then be bound to bring it before Parliament. If no one of the producers, no one of the distributors or retailers and no one of the general public finds it necessary for any cause to bring it before a public inquiry, I do not think there is any great danger of assuming that the proposition is fairly sound and need not be brought before this Imperial House of Parliament. On those grounds, I very much hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am very much afraid that, much as we appreciate the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman to satisfy us, we shall be obliged to carry the Amendment to a Division. We shall do so not because we fear that the right hon. Gentleman will loan money to boards for schemes that are unworthy, or that financial transactions of an uneconomic character will take place. We are con-
vinced that ordinary amendments to the schemes that are in existence ought not to come to the House, and we are satisfied that a board's constitution, and all its day-to-day and week-to-week experience, will ensure that the boards can amend their schemes, with the oversight of the Minister, the retailer, the consumer and other sections of the community, without worrying Parliament at all. In this particular case, however, it is a question of a very special amendment of the scheme, that is required for a very special purpose.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that Clause 1 is intimately connected with Clause 5, and that Clause 5 turns initial expenses into losses for a period of one year. There are only four marketing schemes in existence, and, if the four marketing boards of pigs, bacon, milk and hops wish to take advantage of this Measure when it has become a Statute, they will merely amend their schemes, stating the sort and kind of case for which compensation would be provided. I cannot conceive that any hon. Member who looks forward to the success of those schemes would hold up any draft order that might be laid before the House. The right hon. Gentleman says that Parliament does not want overstocking with orders and draft schemes and that kind of thing, but I would remind him that we get quite a few orders from the Tariff Advisory Committee. They come like water running downhill, almost, in a ceaseless run.
We are not anxious to multiply that sort of thing, but we think that because there are only four marketing boards in existence, if a special amendment for the special purpose of taking advantage of this very special and novel Bill is made, Parliament would not dare to hold up any draft Order or scheme of that kind. We have no desire to interfere with the normal amendments that are discovered to be necessary in schemes as the result of experience, but we think in this case that we are justified in asking that Parliament should have the privilege of control, although that control might not have to be exercised.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 231.

Division No. 20.]
AYES.
[9.26 p.m.


Adams. Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Dickie. John P.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Albery, Irving James
Drewe, Cedric
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hurd, Sir Percy


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Duggan, Hubert John
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Eastwood, John Francis
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)


Atholl, Duchess of
Edmondson, Major A. J.
James, Wing Com. A. W. H.


Baldwin-Webb. Colonel J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Ellisfon, Captain George Sampson
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Eimley, Viscount
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Ker, J. Campbell


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Fermoy, Lord
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Knox, Sir Alfred


Blindell, James
Foot. Dingle (Dundee)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Borodale, Viscount
Foot. Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)


Bossom, A. C.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Leckie, J. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Bowater. Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Ganzonl, Sir John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Levy. Thomas


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gold[...] Noel B.
Lloyd. Geoffrey


Brocklebank, C E. R.
Goodman. Colonel Albert W.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rI'd, N.)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graves, Marjoria
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Brown, Brig.-Gen, H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
MacDonad, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Burghley, Lord
Guinness. Thomas L. E. B.
McKie. John Hamilton


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gunston, Captain D. W.
McLean. Major Sir Alan


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Guy, J. C. Morrison
McLean. Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Carver, Major William H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Magnay, Thomas


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Maitland, Adam


Chapman. Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hanbury, Cecil
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Christie, James Archibald
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.
Harbord, Arthur
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hartland, George A.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Colman, N. C. O.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes)
Mayhew. Lieut.-Colonel John


Cook, Thomas A.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)


Craven-Ellis. William
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Milne, Charles


Crooke, J. Smedley
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Crookshank. Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Monsell. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cross, R. H.
Holdsworth. Herbert
Morrison, William Shepherd


Crossley, A. C.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Munro. Patrick


Cruddas. Lieut. Colonel Bernard
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Curry, A. C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Nation, Brigadier, General J. J. H.


Davies, Maj. Geo, F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hornby, Frank
O'Connor. Terence James


Denman. Hon. R. D.
Horsbrugh, Fiorence
O'Donovan Dr. William James


Danville, Alfred
Howard, Tom Forrest
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Stones, James


Palmer, Francis Noel
Ropner, Colonel, L.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Patrick, Colin M.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Strauss, Edward A.


Peake. Captain Osbert
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Pearson, William G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Peat, Charles U.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Templeton, William P.


Penny. Sir George
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Petherick, M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp't)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Salt, Edward W.
Thompson, Luke


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Pickering, Ernest H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Pike. Cecil F.
Scone, Lord
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Potter, John
Selley, Harry R.
Wallace, John (Duniermilne)


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Shaw, Helen B, (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsened)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Pybus, Percy John
Shepoerson, Sir Ernest W.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Radford, E. A.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wedderburn, Henry Jamas Scrymgeour


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Weymouth, Viscount


Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith. R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Somervell, Sir Donald
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Rankin, Robert
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Rea, Walter Russell
Soper, Richard
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Reld, William Allan (Derby)
Spens, William Patrick



Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Stevenson, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rickards, George William
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Commander Southby.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James.


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen. Major Goronwy


Buchanan. George
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies. David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn. William
Wilmot, John


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McEntee, Valentine, L.



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 21.]
AYES.
 [10.18 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Banfield, John William
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Nathan, Major H. L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Cove, William G.
John, William
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rea, Walter Russell


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McGovern, John



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot





NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fermoy, Lord
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Albery, Irving James
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Aske, Sir Robert William
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Atholl, Duchess of
Ganzonl, Sir John
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gibson, Charles Granville
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McKie. John Hamilton


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gledhill, Gilbert
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Glossop, C. W. H.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Gluckstein, Louis Halie
Magnay, Thomas


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Glyn, Major Raiph G. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Beit, Sir Alfred, L.
Goldie, Noel B.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Blindell, James
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hen. John
Mayhew, Lieut. Colonel John


Borodale, Viscount
Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bossom, A. C.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Milne, Charles


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Moison A, Hugh Elsdale


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D, W.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morrison, William Shephard


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Munro, Patrick


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)
Hanbury, Cecil
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Nation. Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen, H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Browne, Captain A. C.
Harbord, Arthur
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hartland, George A.
Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Burghley, Lord
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kennlngt'n)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Burnett, John George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Patrick, Colin M.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Pearson, William G.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Headlam. Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Penny, Sir George


Carver, Major William H.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Petherick. M.


Castlereagh, Visconnt
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto. Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n. Bilston)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pike, Cecil F.


Christie, James Archibald
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Potter, John


Clarry, Reginald George
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hornby, Frank
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pybus, Percy John


Colman, N. C. D.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Radford, E. A.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ralkes. Henry V. A. M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsay, Cant. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Copeland, Ida
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Craven-Ellis, William
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsden. Sir Eugene


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rankin, Robert


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hurd, Sir Percy
Reed. Arthur C. (Exeter)


Crossley, A. C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Dickie, John P.
Jamleson, Douglas
Rickards, George William


Drewe, Cedric
Jesson. Major Thomas E.
Ropner. Colonel L.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Duggan, Hubert John
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ross Taylor. Walter (Woodbridge)


Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Eastwood. John Francis
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Edmondson, Major A. J,
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Rutherford. Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Leckie, J. A.
Salt. Edward W.


Elmley. Viscount
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart




Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Stevenson, James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Scone, Lord
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Selley, Harry R.
Stones, James
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Strauss, Edward A.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Shepperson. Sir Ernest w.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Weymouth, Viscount


Smith, Louis w. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Sugdtn, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Smith. R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Templeton, William P.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Somervell, Sir Donald
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Soper. Richard
Thompson, Luka
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wise, Alfred R.


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of



Spens, William Patrick
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Major George Davies and Lord Erskine.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 (Power of marketing boards to make loans and grants and to enter into guarantees) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Application of loans and grants made to marketing boards.)

10.28 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out Subsection (1).
I have seen a few Bills presented to this House but I have never before seen a provision of this kind. What is meant by the words that the board may accept money from any other person? This is indeed a novel proposition. It looks as if we are running a charity organisation society and begging money for the purpose of carrying on these marketing schemes. Not only is the board entitled to accept money from private individuals but, as I read the Clause, a private individual who makes a grant can actually decide how his money shall be spent. What type of person has the Minister in mind who will make grants of money for this purpose? Are there any people in Scotland who would do this kind of thing? We know there must be many in Wales. This marketing business is far too serious to talk about conducting it on charitable gifts. It may be that these gentlemen might make gifts in the hope of a knighthood or a peerage or something of that kind, but we are entitled to know exactly what is meant by these words. On the right hon. Gentleman's reply will depend whether or not we will divide on my Amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I should think that the Committee would have been surprised if the board administering a scheme had
not the power to accept money. The fact is that one would take it for granted, as statutory corporations are limited by Statute, that it is for declaratory purposes and in order to make it clear that they are not in any way contravening any statutory provision that these words are put in. I am sure that no hon. or right hon. Member in any section of the House, and certainly not any hon. Member from Scotland or from Wales, would suggest that if anybody were willing to give money to anybody else, the other person should not be empowered to receive it. That would seem to be an almost unnatural position. I am sure that when the hon. Member thinks the matter over, he will realise that it is simply for this purpose. It is clear that normally one would allow such a thing to happen.
It is necessary, however, that in the case of a statutory corporation one should be clear that it has statutory power to accept a grant if such a grant were made. It is for the purpose of clearing up the matter that we have inserted these words. Otherwise it might be said that although board A had power to make a grant to board B, board B would have no power to receive such money. There is no precedent here, because the power to borrow money is already in the Act of 1931, which is specifically stated to be part of the powers of the board. This simply means that if, instead of a loan, somebody wishes to make a grant, it should not be outside the power of a board to accept it. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not find it necessary to divide against what is obviously a reasonable and desirable provision.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up another point? He admits that it would be competent
for a board to receive money from an individual, and that the words "any other person" may include an individual as well as corporate bodies. Will he tell the Committee how it comes about that a person making a grant to a board can call upon the board to distribute and use the grant as he desires? It might be against the will of the board. Is not that assumption correct?

Mr. ELLIOT: Surely, to be trammelled by the limits of a donor is a thing to which every corporation is subjected. If legacies left to individuals are tied up with conditions which individuals may not desire to observe, then their remedy is simply not to accept the legacy. If a person makes a gift under certain conditions, there is nothing compulsory about the matter. If persons do not desire to observe the conditions, they do not desire to accept the gift.

Mr. DAVIES: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.34 p.m.

Major MILNER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, to leave out from the word "them," to the end of the Clause.
The Committee will observe that subsection (3, b) to which my Amendment refers takes away from the producer the right to refer a matter with which he is aggrieved to arbitration. It is a very serious right to take away. The right hon. Gentleman I am sure, in the early days of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, would have been the first to insist upon—as in fact he did—producers having every protection and right both in the matter of arbitration and many other respects. Here we have the case where, apparently, a person making a grant to a board can dictate to the individual on whose advice the board could act in dispensing the money so granted, and can deprive any producer who is aggrieved of the right to refer the matter to arbitration. That is very much overriding the rights of the producers. No harm could be done by saying that the producer shall have the right to refer the matter to arbitration, and, unless the right hon. Gentleman has some very satisfactory explanation to give, the Committee will be well advised in passing the Amendment.

10.35 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that any alteration of the rights of arbitration in regard to the producer is one which the committee would be well to examine with great care, but I am satisfied in this case that the principle which he is anxious to maintain is not interfered with. We all share his desire that the individual producer should have the right of arbitration, but what are the circumstances under the Sub-section? The matter can best be dealt with by way of example. Take the case of the bacon producers to whom a loan or grant is going to be distributed, with the 'advice of the committee of nine—three from the pig producers, three from the bacon curers and three from the Government. That body will go most fully into the question of compensation. It would hardly be an exaggeration to describe it as a quasi-judicial body. It will be a most authoritative body, and, in a matter of this kind, it should be the final body. It will review the whole of the circumstances. It will know the resources at its command and it will carefully investigate each of the cases. Therefore, to superimpose upon the investigation of that quasi-judicial and very independent body the right of appeal to an entirely separate arbitration of an individual producer in the scheme who is going to be benefited, would be putting an immense super-structure upon machinery which is already complicated, although I think it will be effective. On these grounds, and whilst expressing once again our complete agreement with the emphasis which my hon. and gallant Friend has laid upon the principles of arbitration, I would urge him not to press his Amendment.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: While we agree that the committee of nine rather tones down the opposition to the Sub-section, we feel that we have done the registered producers a good service in putting this Amendment on the Order Paper and debating the question on Thursday of last week, to let the registered producers see exactly what the Government have at the back of their minds. The chances are that this special committee of nine may not work out exactly as the right hon.
Gentleman anticipates. The three pig producers and the three bacon curers, making six out of nine, will always be in favour of spending the least sum of money, and it may very well be that the pig producer and the bacon curer may be a combination of six for the sake of securing loans and spending the money, and they may outvote the three independent and very capable other members. If the optimism of the right hon. Gentleman is not misplaced then the argument of the Under-Secretary is right, and, as we are not anxious to stifle any really sensible scheme, I am not sure that we should be doing right in handing to a registered producer a power to superimpose his will on a committee of nine. The Clause is novel in character and we shall watch with interest the development of this scheme.

Major MILNER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 4 (Temporary power of Minister to authorise marketing boards to give guarantees) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of s. 13 of 21 22 Geo. 5. c. 42.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.40 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: This is a most important Clause and we only had a very short explanation of it from the Minister last Thursday. In fact, his explanation only covered about four lines in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The right hon. Gentleman said that it limited the liability of the Treasury under the 1931 Act. Is he quite sure of that? It appears to me to extend the liability rather than limit it. Section 13 of the principal Act provides for the making of short-term loans for the purpose of providing for the expenses incurred in connection with the initial stages of a scheme, and as far as I can see this Clause alters that altogether. The expenses mentioned in the principal Act are those necessary for the initial stages of a scheme. This Clause appears to extend the liability for the initial working expenses of a scheme, that is before a scheme comes in, to a period of 12
months after a scheme starts. The words in the Bill are that at the end of 12 months these expenses:
shall be deemed to be expenses incurred in connection with the initial working of the scheme.
I want the Minister to explain what is meant by the words:
Any expenses incurred by virtue of this Act.
Is it the purpose of this Clause to enable the Minister to treat as expenses losses which have been incurred under any particular scheme? That is the danger we see in the Clause; that it would give power, where losses have been made within 12 months after the commencement of a scheme, for such losses to be treated as initial expenses of a scheme. I may be wrong, but I should like an explanation. Section 11 of the principal Act provides for setting up a fund of £650,000 for loans to boards administering marketing schemes and there is a danger that irrecoverable losses might be written off and then the pool filled up again to the amount of £650,000. Does this particular Clause so extend the liability of the Treasury that it will be possible to treat losses as initial expenses, and then fill up the fund again in order to cover any further losses that there might be? We have not had enough explanation of the Clause. I feel that there is something more behind the Clause than the Minister has told us.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I think my hon. Friend does well to press for some further explanation here. Certainly this is the financial Clause, and it is desirable that we should be clear on the matter. If he refers to Section 13 of the Act of 1931 he will see in the first Sub-section.
The Minister may, on the recommendation of the appropriate Agricultural Marketing Facilities Committee, make to the board administering any scheme approved under this Act a loan of such amount as he thinks necessary for the purpose of providing for expenses incurred in connection with the initial working of the scheme.
First let us be clear that it is a loan that the Minister is entitled to make. He is not entitled to make any grant, and any loan must satisfy the Facilities Committee and the Treasury that it is a good loan and likely to be repaid. He will also see, however, that dispute might arise about those words "expenses incurred in connection with the initial work-
ing of the scheme." I think it is true to say that when we bring in the words "expenses incurred within the period of one year" we have clarified and limited the liability which may fall upon public funds, as compared with the much wider words "expenses incurred in connection with," which, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, are words subject to dispute and possibly running far wider than a mere period of a calendar 12 months, because it would be quite within the power of an unscrupulous Minister to argue that expenses incurred in connection with the initial working of the scheme had been arising after a period of 12 months. It was desirable that some clarification should be given, and consequently we have put in the period of 12 months. I think I have justified our contention that we have not only clarified but limited to a certain extent the liability which may fall upon public funds by virtue of the Section in the 1931 Act.
I come to the second point of the hon. Member. He asked, is it the intention of the Clause that, let us say, losses incurred in the early stages of applying such a scheme might be payable as expenses incurred in connection with the initial working of the scheme? Yes, but that would have no effect at all unless there was someone who was willing to stand the losses, because it is clear the Minister has no power to stand the losses; he has only power to make the loan. The second danger which he anticipated is, I think, to some extent an illusory one. It is true that losses incurred in connection with the initial working of this scheme might be held to be "expenses incurred," but it is also true that the Minister would not be empowered to meet those expenses, but merely to make a loan. It is obviously reasonable that he should make a loan on good security for the purpose of floating one of those schemes, and that he should be entitled to do so if he can satisfy the two important bodies, the Agricultural Marketing Facilities Committee and the Treasury.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: In the Financial Resolution, Section 11 of the 1931 Act is mentioned. There is a provision whereby losses can be treated as irrecoverable and the pool—that is the £650,000—can be made up again to its full total. Is there anything in this Act to enable that to be done?

Mr. ELLIOT: I was just coming to my hon. Friend's third point. "But," he said, "I also have to refer to the Clause which says that it is possible that losses may be made in any of these loans and in which, if losses are incurred, provision is made for a procedure whereby such losses can be made up." Clearly that is a general power extending to any loan, and therefore of course extending to this loan also. Clearly in any loan there is an element of risk, and one has to do one's utmost to guard against that element of risk. Neither the Agricultural Marketing Facilities Committee, however, nor the Treasury, nor the Ministry is infallible, and money may be lost in these loans. As I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, and on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution, we may lose money in home loans as we have so often lost money in foreign loans, but we shall do our utmost to guard against it. We have a special Financial Committee whose consent has to be obtained, and we have the responsibility of the Minister for advising the Treasury to make such a loan, and the Treasury has that over-riding guardianship of the public purse which is inherent in the Treasury. If all those three bodies are satisfied, and with the permission of all those three bodies a loan is made, and if subject to this most meticulous investigation money is lost, provision is properly made for writing off such a loss. That is the reason why we have to bring this Clause before the House in the form of a Financial Resolution: because without a Financial Resolution this Clause might not have been able to become law.
Surely the hon. Member would not say that this would be thoroughly bad faith, either by the Minister or by the Agricultural Marketing Facilities Committee or by the Treasury. It is not going to be used as a subsidy for the purpose of emptying the pool for the benefit of any particular scheme and then filling it up again—syphoning off the pool into a particular scheme and proceeding with this process of granting a subsidy in a rather roundabout way;. filling up the pool by day and then stealthily by night coming and emptying out the contents of the pool into the pockets of one or other of the boards. It is a bona. fide transaction in the strictest sense of the term, and it is certainly not the intention of the
Minister to give a concealed subsidy to any scheme by any such process as I have described. But there is a possibility of loss, and of money having to be written off; there is a possibility of the moneys provided by Parliament for the floating of these schemes being refurnished by the Treasury or this House for the purpose of floating bona fide, schemes. I do not desire to conceal any of these possibilities from the House, but only to say that they are all bona fide transactions. All the proposals before the House have been sanctioned by the most competent financial authorities that this House can produce. If loss occurs, why not face up to it and write it off, as would have to be done in any other public transaction?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I do not think anybody would challenge the good faith of the Minister but what we are discussing is whether this a wise provision or not. As far as I can see the Minister acknowledges that losses made in the initial stages can be treated as expenses and under the Financial Resolution, these losses can be written off. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is how I understand it.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think the Committee is suffering from confusion as to what is possible under Sections 11 and 13 of the original Act. Section 11 enables the Minister to set up an agricultural marketing fund to make loans to marketing boards but it has no relation either to Section 13 of that Act or to Clause 5 of this Bill. Clause 5 makes reference only to Section 13 of the original Act and it turns actual losses into expenses as the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) said. The word "expenses" in Clause 5 is really a misnomer. Any losses incurred 12 months after the operation of the scheme become expenses under the terms of the Bill, and to that extent I agree with the hon. Member that the word makes it a misnomer, and it may well be that the principle is not sound. But as for moneys advanced for initial expenses such as the taking of a poll or losses incurred in the initial stages, they can be met under Clause 5 as extending Section 13 of the Act and no loans advanced under Clause 5 could be written off as a bad debt.
Under Sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the original Act bad debts can be wiped off but that is the agricultural marketing fund and not the fund which is made available for the purpose of enabling a board to bring a scheme into operation. My objection if I have any to Clause 5 is that it has a close relationship to Clause 1 and the extension of power to any board to pay any sort of loss incurred under any scheme. Because of what has happened during the present year the right hon. Gentleman will have to be much more careful in future when inspiring any of these boards to jump into activity and causing them to send, as he himself described, hundreds of thousands of pigs sqealing at him from all directions. That is the situation which has brought about the necessity for this Bill. News went out to pig producers that certain marketing schemes would come into operation, that certain restrictions would be placed on imports and that they would be able to secure higher prices for pigs at a later stage. They therefore withheld pigs from the market.
The restriction of imports was applied. There was a temporary shortage; prices tended to increase and demand tended to decrease. But the bacon curers who had entered into contracts with the producers, found themselves unable to sell at a price which would enable them to pay the producers the prices for which they had contracted. That brought about the serious collapse in the bacon situation which has produced the Bill. Unless and until the right hon. Gentleman pays, more attention to retail prices than has been done so far, or is being done at this moment, or is likely to be clone under the terms of reference laid down to the Consumers' Committee and the Consumers' Council, he will always be subject to booms and slumps, not in five yearly cycles but in cycles of every few months. We think the scheme may be necessary, but in future much more attention must be paid to retail prices, and the Consumers' Council must become an almost permanently sitting, watching, and examining body if these agricultural marketing schemes are to be a success.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Extension of powers of marketing boards to purchase and deal with products.)

11.2 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that nothing in this Section shall be deemed to authorise in any scheme a provision whereby the powers conferred upon the board may be restricted at the discretion of another board.
This is a very simple proposal, and I am half inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman for the first time will concede the Amendment, if he thinks it is really necessary, although so far not a comma nor a dot has he given away. Under Clause 6 any board operating in England can take over the powers of a similar board operating in Northern Ireland. They can become their sales agents and distribute Northern Ireland produce in this country. It therefore empowers the British board to become an import board for Northern Irish bacon purposes. We want to ensure that under the terms of this transfer of powers the British board will not be empowered at some later date to restrict the output from Northern Ireland or to restrict the sale in England of Northern Ireland produce. That is the sole intention and purpose of this Amendment. We think, not that we are head over ears in love with Northern Ireland any more than with England or Scotland, that if there is to be a normal expansion based upon co-operation, it ought to be exercised within the four corners of the scheme, and we do not want any English board to superimpose its greater powers upon any smaller board.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure I shall be able to satisfy my hon. Friend completely, not necessarily by accepting his Amendment, but by assuring him that I have taken legal advice, and that the whole purpose

which he desires is already effected in this Clause. He put this Clause to me on Second Reading, and, therefore, I am obliged to him for that, and have been able to take legal advice on the subject. On that occasion he said:
Will a board, under the terms of Clause C of this Bill be able to exercise actual control over the output and the sale of Northern Ireland produce in the British Isles? Will the Great Britain Bacon Board have power at present, or on any future occasion, to limit the output in Northern Ireland or to limit the sale of Northern Ireland produce on the British market?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1933; col. 1929, Vol. 283.]

I think that that states fairly the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised again to-night. I have taken legal advice, and I am advised that his fears are groundless. There is nothing under Clause 6 to enable a board to exercise control over the output of Northern Ireland produce or to enable a Great Britain Bacon Board to have power at present or in the future to limit the output in Northern Ireland or to limit the sale of Northern Ireland produce in the British market. That being so, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not find it necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: On that statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 7 (Interpretation of terms, and revocation of Orders) and 8 (Short title and citation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 47.

Division No. 22.]
AYES.
 [11.7 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Blindell, James
Butt, Sir Alfred


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Borodale, Viscount
Campbell. Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Boulton, W. W.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Aske, Sir Robert William
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Carver, Major William H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Christie, James Archibald


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarry. Reginald George


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Clayton, Sir Christopher


Bateman, A. L.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Brown. Brig.-Gen.H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Colman, N. C. D.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Browne, Captain A. C.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cook, Thomas A.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Burghley, Lord
Copeland, Ida


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Burnett, John George
Craven-Ellis, William


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rankin, Robert


Cross, R. H.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Crossley, A. C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Barnard
Iveagh, Countess of
Reid, James S. C (Stirling)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Raid, William Allan (Derby)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rickards, George William


Denville, Alfred
Jamleson, Douglas
Robinson, John Roland


Dickie, John, P.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Drewe, Cedric
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Duckworth, George A. V.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Duggan, Hubert John
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)


Eastwood, John Francis
Kerr, Hamilton w.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Salt, Edward W.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Leckie, J. A.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Elmley, Viscount
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Scone, Lord


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Selley, Harry R.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shepperson. Sir Ernest W.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Gibson, Charles Granville
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dihe, C.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton
Somervell, Sir Donald


Gledhill, Gilbert
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Soper, Richard


Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Magnay, Thomas
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Goff, Sir Park
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Spens, William Patrick


Goldie, Noel B.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fyide)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stevenson, James


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stones, James


Grimston, R. V.
Milne, Charles
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Strauss, Edward A.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Strickland. Captain W. F.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, William Shephard
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Munro, Patrick
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hanbury, Cecil
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thompson. Luke


Hanley, Dennis A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Thorp. Linton Theodore


Harbord, Arthur
Oman, Sir Charles William C
Titchfield. Major the Marquess of


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Tree, Ronald


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wallace. John (Dunfermline)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Patrick, Colin M.
Ward. Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)
Pearson, William G.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Heneage. Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peat, Charles U.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Petherick. M.
Wells. Sydney Richard


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Weymouth, Viscount


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Potter, John
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Hore-Belisha, Leslis
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hornby, Frank
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wills. Wilfrid D.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Pybus, Percy John
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Howard, Tom Forrest
Radford, E. A.
Wise, Alfred R.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.



Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Holdsworth, Herbert
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Janner, Barnett
Pickering, Ernest H.


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
White, Henry Graham


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McGovern, John
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot. Dingle (Dundee)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Granfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. John.


Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James



Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.


Motion made and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the urban district of Budleigh Salterton, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 21st day of November, 1933, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the urban district of Ormskirk, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 21st day of November. 1933, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Act, 1930, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, to increase the capital and borrowing powers of the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Company, which was presented on the 21st day of November, 1933, be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.